WSP05579 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I .. ,', I I _ 1041 (d) Depletions due to ultimate development of presently operating major transmountain diversions for export of water to the Eastern Slope 8S shown in the fOllowing table. The figures for average annual diversions are tentative. Except for the Independence Pass Tunnel, 1ihich \Tere taken from recent studies prepared by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Pueblo office of the Bureau of Reclamation, these figures were taken from Appendix B of the draft of report on the Blue-South Platte Project. All of these figures are currently being revised. Since these figures are used only to define the length of period during which replacement storage would need be released, it is not believed that any major changes in these figures would have a material effect on the results of the study of replacement storage. (Averages for 100year period, 1931-40, inclusive) Grand River Ditch .................... 19,800 acre-feet -Independence Pass (Twin Lakes) Ttmnel ............................. u3,900 acre-feet Moffatt Tunnel ....................... 83,000 acre-feet Jones Pass Tunnel .................... 15,500 acre-feet Colorado-Big Thompson Project ....... 262,000 acre-feet Total (period 1931-40, incl.) 424,200 acre-feet ...Over long-time period, 1911-1947, inclusive, average would be S2,800 acre-feet. (e) Industrial consumptive use demand on river above Cameo 300,000 acre-feet annually (25,000 acre-feet per month). Renlacement storage required for Initial Phase Gunnison-Arkansas Project 7. In periods vmen the now at Cameo was inadequate to meet the demands described in Paragraph 6, it was assumecl that any water diverted by the Gunnison-Arkansas Project from the Colorado River Basin above Cumeo would need be replaced with stora~e releases from the Aspen Reservoir" The study was based on dliily records of streamflow at Cameo durinG the critic~ period of 1934-35. Storage requirements to supply natural shortages at Aspen 8. In the low water season of 1934, the past flow of the Roaring Fork at Aspen was inadequate, even though no tnmsmountain diversion has been made to fully meet the estimated future demands described in ParaGraph 4. Comparison of such demancls with the past streamflows shows the storar;e required to meet such natural shortages of the canals at Aspen. Storage requirements to meet nossible contingent uses 9. In adilition to the storage reqllirements heretofore describer!., there are certain contingent uses of a reservoir o.t the Aspen site which are de- s~ribed in the following paragraphs. h