PROJ00259

• Contract/PO #: C153424
• Contractor Name: Colorado River Water Conservation District
• Water District: 0
• Bill Number: XB 99-999
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I

I

More than 90 operation studies were performed. A review of the
results of the first few runs guided the focus of the subsequent
studies. When project features were found to have little impact on
the yield of the overall project, they were dropped from further
consideration. Features which produced a substantial increase in
yield were combined with other features which also increased yield.
This process was continued until the IOOst efficient project features
were identified. A summary of the IOOst significant findings is pro-
vided below:

I

I

I

1. Lower Kendig and Upper Kendig reservoirs are the most
efficient storage sites because they control the greatest drainage
areas while they are above the major diversion canals. For both Upper
and Lower Kendig each acre-foot of storage would generate about 1
acre-foot of yield (100% efficiency) for reservoirs less than about
8000 acre-foot total. This ratio drops gradually with increasing
reservoir size; for a 25,000 acre-foot reservoir the yield is about
0.55 (55% efficiency) acre-feet of yield per acre-foot of storage.

I

I

2.
have a much
above it.
acre-feet.
storage (3%
acre-foot).

Dry Hollow Reservoir is
smaller service area and
The efficiency is 24%
This drops sharply to
efficiency) for larger

less efficient because it would
there is little natural drainage
for reservoirs of about 2500
.03 acre-foot yield/acre-foot
reservoirs (for example 8000

I
II
I
I

3.
Upper Kendig
either Upper
drainage area.

Haystack reservoir while providing benefits similar to
and Lower Kendig reservoirs, is less efficient than
or Lower Kendig reservoirs because it has a smaller

I
I

4. The pr,oposed canals in the West Divide Creek and Hamm
Creek basins would substantially improve project yield. The most
beneficial improvements are the Porter Ditch enlargement and extension
to Mamm Creek and the Hunter Mesa Canal. The Porter Ditch extension
would allow water from Lower Kendig Reservoir to reach Hunter Mesa,
and the Hunter Mesa Canal would permit delivery of West Divide Creek
water to upper Hunter Mesa. The Dry Hollow Canal would allow water
stored in Dry Hollow Reservoir to be delivered to the lower half of
Hunter Mesa.

I

I

I

5. The proposed reservoirs in the Beaver Creek basin would
produce yields of about 1100 acre-feet or less. Even with these reser-
voirs providing complete regulation of the entire supply, there would
be additional water needs on Taughenbaugh Mesa, suggesting that the
existing Taughenbaugh Mesa irrigated service area would benefit from
imported water. This was not pursued because the high cost of a canal

I
I

I

1-10

I
I