My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC04231
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
16000-16999
>
WSPC04231
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:38:26 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 4:30:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8408
Description
Platte River Basin-River Basin General Correspondence
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
3/1/1956
Author
RM Gildersleeve
Title
Williams Fork Reservoir-1956-Memorandum-Williams Fork Situation and Status of Replacement Studies
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.( <br /> <br />- 5 - <br /> <br />and the Colorado River Hater Conservation District were represented. At this <br /> <br /> <br />meeting 11r. Mosley stated that he had asked Hr. Tipton to make a study as to <br /> <br /> <br />the amount of storage capacity that would be required in the Williams Fork <br /> <br /> <br />Reservoir consistent l~th the stipulation of October 1955. Until this report <br /> <br /> <br />could be completed, Denver was not in a position to present any figures with <br /> <br /> <br />respect to this capacity. <br /> <br /> <br />The Bureau reviewed studies which had been made for the Parshall <br /> <br /> <br />project and an estimate of a possible reduction of about 6,000 acres in the <br /> <br /> <br />size of the project if the Jones Pass diversion should be expanded to divert <br /> <br /> <br />about 28,000 acre feet annually. This study, ho;rever, did not contemplate an <br /> <br /> <br />increase in storage capacity of the Williams Fork Reservoir to 93,000 acre <br /> <br /> <br />feet. <br /> <br />The question was raised as to the possibility of securing replacement <br /> <br /> <br />storage elsewhere above the Shoshone power plant in lieu of complete utilization <br /> <br /> <br />of the vlilliams Fork Reservoir site. It was brought out that at various times <br /> <br /> <br />the Bureau has considered several sites along the Colorado River above that <br /> <br /> <br />pcwer plant. <br /> <br /> <br />After di scussio n, it was suggested that before Denver plans have <br /> <br /> <br />crystallized, the Bureau, in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation <br /> <br /> <br />Board, should initiate studies to determine at least the physical character- <br /> <br /> <br />istics of a project which would provide the necessary replacement storage for <br /> <br /> <br />Denver l~thout unduly curtailing the water supply for potentially arable lands <br /> <br /> <br />in the Hilliams Watershed. <br /> <br /> <br />The first step in such a study is to determine the replacement require- <br /> <br /> <br />ments for the ultimate Hoffat tunnel, Jones Pass turmel and potential Blue River <br /> <br /> <br />diversions. The effects of these diversions, together with potential depletions <br /> <br />0751 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.