WSP00945

• File Number: 8442.400
• Description: Missouri Basin - Pick Sloan Project - Reports
• State: CO
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 2/28/1985
• Author: DoI, BoR
• Title: Lake Andes - Wagner Unit Planning Report / draft Enviromental Statement
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I

Plan Formulation

I

Previous Studies

Plan Formulation Studies for Lands West of Choteau Creek

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

The Wagner Unit was previously investigate~ by the Bureau in the late

1960's. The plan of development at that time was to pump water from Lake

Francis Case for gravity irrigation of 19,500 acres of land, municipal and

industrial use for the towns of Lake Andes apd Wagner, fish and wildlife

purposes, and recreation development. The plan formulated was economically

justified but was not ac~eptable to the project sponsors; therefore, the

study was discofltinued.

As part of Lower James-Fort Randall Water Diversion Proposal, the Lake

Andes-Wagner Irrigation District requested the Bureau to reformulate the

Wagner Unit in an attempt to develop a feasible plan. The first alter-

native examin~d was a block of 13,315 aCres)Which would be suitable for

sprinkler, irrigation. Even though results ~f the preliminary analysis

revealed that this alternative was not l\conomically, feasible, thl\ State's

and irrigation district's support ,remained strong. The major factors

affecting the project's feasibility werl\ the high costs for the pumping

plant and subsurface drsinage. Additio~al drainage field investigations

were completed during the field season ~f 1982, which indicated that the

drainage costs were .significantly lower fori areas south of the 13,315

acres. Th,erefore the original area, examined in the late 1960's, was

reevaluated and a potential project wit~ approximately 35,000 aCres was

formulated.

I

I
I

The 35,OOO-acre plan was based on pumpi:ng water from L~ke Francis Case.
The potential for aquifer development Was *ejected based on poor water
quality and uncertainty of yield (see Watet in Chapter 3). The potential
for using Lake Andes as a reregulating reservoir also was rejected pri-
marily because of litigation concerning ownership of the lake. Using the
lake for regulation would also result in high evaporation losses, and would
necessitate two main pumping pI-ants which would increase construction
,

I
I

I

I

costs. The use of Chateau Creek as a water supply was rejected based on

poor quality and limited quantity. No oth~r reasonable reservoir sites or
,

18

I
I