|
<br />3915
<br />
<br />FRYlNGPAN.-ARKANBAS PROJECT, COLORADO
<br />
<br />15,
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />in Arizona, Colorado's apportionment of Colorado River Basi.n
<br />water is estimated to be about 3,855,000 acre-feet annually. It IS
<br />estimated t.hat about 1,590,000 acre-feet will be required for use by
<br />existing and authorized projects, leaving 2,265,000 acre-feet anmlally
<br />for use by future projects. Of this amount it is est.imated t,hat 440,000
<br />acre-feet should be reserved to meet Colorado's share of depletions
<br />caused by main stem reservoirs required for long-time hold-over
<br />storage to make the water available for use under the Colorado River
<br />compact. About '1,825,000 acre-feet annually would remain for use
<br />by potential projects. These figures inriicate the availability of
<br />about 1,750,000 acrc-feet of water annulLlly, after full development
<br />of the proposed initial developmeut, Gunnison-Arkansas project, to
<br />mee.t other potent,ia! uses of Colorado River water in Colorado.
<br />61. The 1947 report on the Colorado Hiver (H. Doc. 419, 80th
<br />Cong., 1st sess,) shows estimated uses by potential irrigation projects,
<br />withm the natural Colorado River Basin in Colorado, of 870,000
<br />acre-feet annually. Studies arc under wa~r to refine t.he est.imate
<br />of potential within-basin uses in Colorado for nil purposes ineluding
<br />industrial uScs. He,.iew of available information shows t.hat the
<br />total of all such potential uses will likely be less than the figure of
<br />1,750,000 acre-feet.
<br />62. Prese,nt and prospective uses from Fn'ingpan River would be
<br />supplied by the bypass of water from the eollection ('ullols. Storagc
<br />releases from the Aspen Reservoir would replace wat.er div"rt"d that
<br />would otherwise be needed by present alld prospective users aloug
<br />the Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers.
<br />63. During the 1911-44 period of study the Hatural witter supply
<br />of the project area between Pueblo and the Colorado-Kansas boundary
<br />averaged 1,143,000 "ere-feet annually, including ret,urn flows but
<br />ex.cluding n.bout 48,000 acre-feet from eight t.ransmountain diversious.
<br />Disposition of the average annu,,[ supply was as follows:
<br />
<br />Disp~sition: .. .
<br />
<br />~:~~~~~~;~~~~~~:~~~~=~=======~========================:::
<br />
<br />Outflow to KaW::i!:l.:L_____ _____ ._____________u_ ________ _____
<br />
<br />Acr~-fta
<br />606,000
<br />lliO, 000
<br />50,000
<br />277, 000
<br />
<br />Total. _ .___ __ _ _____ _ ___ __ un__ __n_ ______ n ______ __on 1. 143,000
<br />64. The estimated ideal headgate diversion requirements during the
<br />irrigation season average 983,000 aere-feet. Reeonstructcd data show-
<br />ing the effcet of Twin Lakes diversion and the John Martin Reservoir--
<br />had they been in operation for tbat entire periotl--disclose that the
<br />historical heatlgate divcrsions wonld have avcraged 720,000 acre-feet
<br />~e~son~ll!o~.,.W:hiCh 643,000 acre-feet would be wit,hin the ideal
<br />ITngatlOn ~tlu!e. The d,fferen<:t of 340,000 acrc-feet rcpresents
<br />tbe averlll! "nnual headgat<jshortage. Through optimum lltilizat.ion
<br />of aU available supplies, nev.;. tro.nsmountain diversions, and reuse of
<br />return flows, the project cq.uld effectuate fln estimated supply of
<br />184,600 acre-feet. of supplement'" irrigation wllter at t.he canal head-
<br />gates in the maIO vall"y. That supply would reduce the average
<br />snnual headgate shortage to about 155,000 acre-feet-a reduction
<br />from 35 percent shortage of ideal requirements to about 16 percent
<br />shortage.
<br />
<br />.....
<br />
<br />J:J?'
<br />
|