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 />Boyd lake treatment plants. Peak summer municipal demands are satisfied <br />economi cally and effi cient1y, and the water supply avafl ab1 e for agri cu1 ture <br />is increased duri ng the peri od of hi ghest consumpti ve use. Thi s operati ng <br />pattern could also increase winter supplies for the City if the exchange plan <br />is not undertaken. The major di sadvantage of operati ng wi thout carry-over <br />storage is that water shortages may occur during a prolonged drought: <br />However, the large amount of Colorado-Big Thompson water owned by the City <br />should amply insure against such a possibility on a system-wide basis. In <br />drought years, CBT water, sufficient to meet projected winter water <br />requirements for the City of Greeley, could be transferred to storage in <br />Gree1 ey' s hi gh mountai n reservoi rt duri ng the spri ng util i zi ng ri ver <br />exchanges. Water stored by such transfers would be released during the winter <br />to augment winter streamf10ws and aSSure sufficient water is available to the <br />Be1lvue Filtration Plant to meet the City's water demands. <br /> <br />Reservoir operation studies were conducted for two conditions--restricted and <br />unrestricted operations. Current operating restrictions imposed by the <br />Colorado Office of the State Engineer limit the storage capacity of Peterson <br />lake Reservol r. Resu1 ts of this simu1 ati on were compared wi th the <br />unrestri cted operati ons associ ated wi th rehabil i tati ng the dam, spi 11 way , and <br />outl et works. The di fference in prOject yl e1 d is useful in determi ni ng the <br />unit cost of water for repairing the structures. <br /> <br />The water supply at Peterson Lake Reservoir is sufficient to fill its <br />conservation storage every year if operating levels are restricted to a gage <br />height of 20 feet, or 595 acre-feet. Therefore, the firm yield and maximum <br />yield analyses produced the same results as shown on Table IV.8. The yield <br />was 595 acre-feet annually. Reservoir fluctuations went from full in the <br />spring to empty in the fall for every year of the study period. <br /> <br />For unrestricted conditions, a total reservoir content of 1,252 acre-feet <br />coi nci ded wi th gage hei ght 32 feet for Peterson lake Reservoi r. The acti ve <br />conservati on space is 1,183 acre-feet. An annual fi rm yi el d of 1,010 acre- <br />feet, or a maximum yield of 1,150 acre-feet per year is attainable; depending <br />upon the operating criteria. The firm yield analysis will be used in later <br /> <br />-30- <br />