Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l}020H <br /> <br />1 <br />-j <br />'~ <br />""1 <br />, <br />,:j <br />, <br />'ij <br />i <br />':~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />V. Grand Valley Project <br /> <br />The Grand Valley Project was built by the Bureau between 1912 and 1917 and is <br />operated by 'the Grand Valley Water Users Association (GVWUA), Orchard Mesa <br />Irrigation District (OMID), Palisade Irrigation District (PID), and the Mesa County <br />Irrigation Dis~ct (MCID). USBRretains a key role in the functioning of this project. As <br />a federal entity USBR has its own responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, which <br />it is currently [addressing by participation in the endangered fish recovery program. USBR <br />has looked at ways that the Grand Valley project and other projects it is involved in can <br />lessen impactS on critical habitat and be operated to augment flows in the "lS-Mile Reach". <br />Draft Report,-Juiy, 1990: Study of Alternative Water Supplies for Endangered Fishes In the <br />"15-Mile Rea~h" of the Colorado River. <br /> <br />-) <br />Ii <br />"" <br />'i <br />';i <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />-1 <br /> <br />.1 <br />';4 <br />J <br /> <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />During operations studies of the Grand Valley Project, the USBR has identified <br />several feasible measures which can reduce irrigation headgate diversions without impairing <br />crop deliveries. USBR believes it would be possible to structurally improve the Government <br />Highline C~al by installation of automated level control gates ("checks") so that <br />administrativ~ spills from the system could be reduced. Currently the canal must be_ kept <br />full of water throughout its 55 mile length to provide a sufficient volume and height of water <br />to all delivery points. When irrigation demands are less than anticipated, canal water is <br />spilled or "w3,$ted" back to the river. At certain times this spilled water has been called past <br />upstream juniors. It is also not available to the reach of critical habitat between the canal <br />headgate and: the waste discharge point. USBR estimates that some 60,000 AF is spilled <br />annually and preliminary indications are that 60% of these spills could be avoided with <br />improved facilities and management techniques. On this basis USBR estimates 36,000 AF <br />per year of saved water potential from operational changes in the Government Highline <br />System. These estimates are based on a very preliminary analysis of operational changes <br />in the system and water users do not necessarily agree with these estimates. <br /> <br />VI. Disposition of "Salvage" Water Produced in the Grand Valley <br /> <br />Water salvaged (no longer consumed) or saved (no longer diverted), if any proves <br />to be physically available, could be allocated to various water users pursuant to the following <br />scenarios, depending on how legal and policy issues are resolved. <br /> <br />Under existing state law and the Salinity Control Act there is no barrier to the <br />original appropriator using saved or salvaged water to make up current shortfalls in their <br />own supply, provided no additional irrigated acres are added. Despite the seniority of the <br />Cameo call there are indications that shortfalls do exist during peak irrigation periods in the <br />Grand Valley; This occurs despite the fact that the full decreed amount is being diverted, <br />because that tate is not large enough to provide for all the deliveries that may be required <br />at a particular moment. Better scheduling and rotating demands may alleviate this situation. <br />Current information indicates that a major portion of the water previously lost to seepage <br />may continue to be diverted to meet short term peak irrigation demands, unless ditch <br />. systems become able to better schedule and meet demands. <br /> <br />6 <br />