Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />There are four adjudicated water rights for the Smith Ditch with amounts and priority <br />dates as shown in Table 1. <br /> <br />Table 1. Smith Ditch Water Rights <br /> <br />Date of <br />Adjudication <br />9/22/1892 <br />9/22/1892 <br />9/1/1960 <br />12/31/1989 <br /> <br />Date of <br />Appropriation <br />12/6/1886 <br />3/26/1888 <br />5/1/1939 <br />4/15/1988 <br />Total <br /> <br />Amount <br />(cfs) <br />5.46 <br />2.20 <br />13.33 <br />2.00 <br />22.99 <br /> <br />The Smith Ditch diversion record, as provided by the Water Division 6 Engineer's <br />Office, for the years 1932 to 1996 is displayed in Appendix D. Water was diverted when <br />it was available in most of those years. The average annual diversion for 63 years of <br />record was 1,205 acre-feet. <br /> <br />5. Project Description <br /> <br />The purpose of this project is to provide a means for the Smith Ditch to continue to utilize <br />diversions from Elkhead Creek. Three alternatives were considered: <br /> <br />1. Using a pump to divert water from Elkhead Creek into the ditch, <br /> <br />2. Construction of a new diversion structure in the main channel of the creek, and <br /> <br />3. No action. <br /> <br />Alternative No. I would involve significant pumping costs as well as the installation of <br />power lines to a fairly remote area. In addition, and probably most important, the <br />pumping alternative is not acceptable to the members of the Corporation. <br /> <br />Alternative No.3 would result in the conversion of about 400 acres of productive <br />irrigated crop lands to dryland crops. This alternative is addressed in more detail in the <br />economic analysis in Section 9 ofthis report. <br /> <br />The selected alternative, Alternative No.2, involves the construction of a new diversion <br />structure to be located about 200 feet downstream ofthe existing diversion and headgate. <br />Engineering designs and cost estimates for the project have been prepared by the Routt <br />County Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Plan and cross <br />section views, as prepared by the NRCS, are shown in Figure 3. <br /> <br />5 <br />