Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />FC,O No Action <br /> <br />FC-l <br /> <br />Provide flood <br />control storage in <br />reservoir <br /> <br />FC-2 Provk:le "free <br />watar' to FIC <br /> <br />Table 3 -- Analysis of Flood Control Improvement Options <br /> <br />00 not use the potential of Silt <br />Project facilities to help reduce <br />flood levels & demages on Rifle <br />Creek through the city of Rifle. <br /> <br />Space In RG Reaervoir would be <br />allocated to flood control use. <br /> <br />During 8 spring n.mott situation <br />when RG ia full. other water <br />users would be encouraged to <br />take 8S much water as possible <br />to reduce flows in Rifle Creek. <br /> <br />!!liiIcii~:lN; <br />i6LV1NGTHEi'ii6'iiiliiilll:! <br /> <br />Not effective. <br /> <br />- Would minimize chances <br />of an uncontrolled RG spill <br />occurring at the same <br />time as flood events in <br />othar portions of the Rifle <br />Creek drainage. <br />- Stopping controlled <br />releases from RG coukt <br />take up to 310 cfs off of <br />the 10-yr. peak diacharga <br />of 1,490 cfs and tha 50- <br />yr. peak discharge of <br />2.230 cfa in the city of <br />Rifle just below the <br />confluence of Government <br />Creek. This likely would <br />reduce 50 yr. flood levels <br />through the City laas than <br />1 foot. <br /> <br />Difficult to estimate since <br />the rate of participation & <br />available capacity (to <br />carry extra flowl in these <br />ditches are unknown. <br />Additional study needed <br />to determine <br />effectiveness. <br /> <br />'.'.". <br />i':~A1Ajj:,i;;' <br />:}FtA'W$tt <br /> <br />SWCD has <br />contractual <br />righta to all <br />water <br />stored in <br />the <br />reservoir. <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br /> <br />Not esttmated, costs <br />would result from flood <br />damages to infrastructure <br />and personal property <br />alan Rifle Creek. <br /> <br />Not estimated. <br /> <br />However, there would be <br />administrative costs to <br />reallocate storage and <br />probably additional D&M <br />costs associated with <br />flood control operations. <br /> <br />Should have small labor <br />cost. <br /> <br />- Weter aupply anticipated by SWCD <br />shareholders may not be available if storage <br />space is reserved & does not fill. <br />- SWCD shareholders have developed <br />farms/ranches based on having water <br />available. <br />. Use for flood control is not recognized by <br />the water rights decree, so any weter <br />bypaSSed In anticipation of floods Is counted <br />against how much can be stored in the <br />reservoir. <br />- Reallocation would require Congressional <br />action. <br />- Mey need refill right. <br />- Possibly could be done with an <br />administrative agreement between <br />stakeholders. <br /> <br />- Discuss with ditch operators &. water <br />commissioner the potential of this option <br />during spring conditions. <br />- Outside of the spring snowmelt runoff <br />season, it would be difficuh: to anticipate the <br />occurrence of intense rainfall events for <br />ditches to begin taking the full capacity of <br />the ditch. <br />Probably not effective for summer storm <br />events. <br />- Could a roblem be created elsewhere? <br />