WSP00011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1541 August 19, 1999 evaluation and public comment. As a result of this evaluation, six of the alternatives shown on Table 2 are presently being considered to meet District-wide storage needs. These include: \ TABLE 2 STORAGE OPTIONS Storage Option Non-strucwral Alternatives Fry-Ark Project Reoperation Water Conservation Measures Drought Management Concepts Structural Alternatives Pueblo Reservoir Enlargement Gravel Lakes Storage Lake Meredith Enlargement Turquoise Lake Enlargement Williams Creek Reservoir Total Notes: (I) GEl is currently investigated the potential of these concepts. Potential Volume (aO 90,000 (I) (I) 75,000 13,000 80,000 9,000 16,000 283,000 It is likely that two or more of the above alternatives would be combined to meet overall storage needs. A discussion of each of the six alternatives and the approach that is proposed for their utilization to meet basin wide storage needs is presented in the following sections. Non-Structural Alternatives Fry-Ark System Re-Operation Re-operation of Eastern Slope Fry-Ark storage facilities was first studied in 1990 by the USBR (USBR, 1990) and again in 1995 by CSU (Gronning, 1995). One question posed in the re- operation studies was whether or not some portion of Project storage space on the Eastern Slope could be utilized to store non-Project water without adversely affecting Project operations. The results of these two studies indicate that the non-structural re-operation alternative may be viable option when combined with other structural alternatives. The concept of re-operation involves cooperative management and flexibility in the operation of existing, enlarged and future storage facilities in the Arkansas River Basin. The re-operation concept would require the involvement of numerous water users, the USBR and the SECWCD. The USSR study, which utilized a Bureau operations model and 20 years of hydrologic data (1966-1985), investigated the allocation of 70,000 ac-ft of Project storage space to non-Project water and the Winter Water Storage Program. Modeling results published by the Bureau indicate that an allocation of 70,000 ac-ft of Project storage space to non-Project water or other entities could be made, but would result in injury to Project yield. The 1995 Gronning study utilized a calibrated MODSIM model to simulate the movement of Fry-Ark Project water through the Arkansas River Basin. Inputs to the model included 25 years 2 __ 01900