WSP06677 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dallas Project changes dur[ngm~p7aUnYiiY/ng The Dallas Creek Project, as it is now being constructed is the result of a long and in- volved planning process and it bears little resemblance to some of the earlierproposals. Much more land has been consideJed for irrigation by the project than will actually be served, water for municipal and lIDmestic use has become a bigger part of the project, and propoS<llsfor hydroelectric generation and the conversion of coal to energy have been considered but dropped .from the plan. During the planning process over 20 potential reservoir sites were studied and detailed land classifica- tion studies were conducteo on nearly 174,000 acres of land to determine irrigation capability. DiversiOlls of water to the' upper Dallas Creek basin from the headwaters of Leopard' Creek in the SaD Miguel River drainage and Canyon Creek, an Uncom- pahgre River tributary were considered. When the Ute Indians were. expelled from western- Colorado in 1881 a rush of white settlers poured into the Uncompahgre VaUey at- tracted by new farming and ranching opportunities. The town of Delta was founded that year followed by Montrose in 1882, OIathe in 1883, and Ridgway in 1890. Irrigated agriCUlture ex- panded rapidly throughout the valley with the construc- lion of small privately financ- eddiv~rsi()t\s. By'thev.c;r:y~ctionsim: .PN8l:Jl.Y; ,prlvate~nnancing these'- developments were limited w the lands close to tbestreams. In 1912 the Uncomp9hgre Project~-one of the .verY first Federal Reclamation_ dev:clopments., began delivering water {rom the 'Gunnison Rive\" throo.gh the Gunnison Tunnel to the lands around Montrose, QJathe, aiKI-Delta. After completion-of the Un- compahgre Project and the successful irrigation of lands in the lower Uncompahgre Valley, interest developed in constructing a water delivery system for potential fann lands on Log Hill Mesa, south of RIdgway, and alongtheup- per Uncompahgre River and Its tributaries. Soon after World War lIthe Bureau of Reclam8tion began to seriously study the possibility of a water project for the upper Uncompahgre River Basin. The early plan- ning was directed entirely toward irrigation. "Ouray Project'} One of the first plans proposed was referred to by Bureau technicians as the Ouray PrQject. This plan was never for- mally published, but it. was really the starting point for the ensuing years of study. This proposal would havl;' developed water for the irrigatIOn of ..bout ]7.500 Beres of new land fur sUfJP!cment~1 ~ullplit'5 (0 Oloout JO_51}O <!l:res of iJl;!d,-'- q\13h'l) iY-r\ga~€i\ land These lands were IOGd(;l1 in lbree dlstindgroupS.llDLog HiIlMe:;O,inthelowerDallw; Creek Valley near Ridg......,y; <lnd m the Cow and Dry Creek Valleys east of the Uncom- pahgre Ri vel'. The contemplated plan of development of the Ouray Project called .f0r the con. .'Stntction of..-tit~-''Storage' reservoirs, one collection canal, and two distribution canals. The Ramsllom Reservoir on Cow Creek, about 8 miles east of lUdgway, would have provided an estimated 25,000 acre-feet of active storage capacity to serve the Dry and Cow Creek lands and to provide replacement for depletion of divertible water adjudicated to irrigators in the Uncompahgre Valley. Willow Swamp Reservoir on East Dallas Creek would have provided about 5,000 acre-feet of actives tor age for release to lands along Dallas Creek and on Log Hill Mesa. Pleasant Valley Reservoir Qn Pleasant Valley Creek, a. tributary to Dallas Creek would have provided 11,200 acre-feetofactivestoragefor lands on Log Hill Mesa. Pleasant Valley Reservoir would have stored water delivered to it by the Dallas Creek Collection Canal. ThLs canal would have headed on Beaver Creek, the most easteT\)1 tributaf)' of DaJlas Crf:!ek, and conveyed water about 4 miles to the WiJlow Swamp Reservoir. The collection canal would have continued for another 16 miles from theouUet works of Willow - Swamp Reservoir to the Pleasant Valley Reser- voir. The canal would also have received water diverted to it from - leoPard Creek of the adjacent San Miguel River Basin. One of the distribution canals would have been the Log H1~Mesa\Canal;,heading at Pleas'aniVaUey,ReserVoir 'apd'-croSsfug-Log-HilJMesa' jlbove the irrigabJe lands for' ,about 19-~ miles and ter- minati'ng at Happy CanyOn. The other distribution ca'naI was"to h~ve been the Ridgway: Replacement - Canal, dive,~ ftom the Un- cQffipahgre -tuver about 2. miles downstream from the town of Ouray. . It would have provided replacement and ~upplemen- .tal,water for 'lands in the DallasCreek Basln presently irrigated by water thatwould have been diverted to Plea- sant Valley' Reservoir by Willow Swamp Reservoir. -Danas Creek Unit In Feburary of 1951 the Bureau of Reclamation published a reconnaissance report on the Gunnison River Project. One part of this ex- tensive project was the Dallas Creek Unit, which in- cluded many of the features oBhe Ouray Project. Doe deviation from the former plab- was the deletion of supplemental irrigation for Dry and Cow Creek lands, because it was now felt that the small increase in crop yields in that area at- tributable to the project would not justify the in- creased use of w;l.ter, ImplemcntaWm 01 this plan would have providcV_ water for about 22,000 a('n:,,~ of iand on Log Hill Mesa ann along Dal1<1S Creek Tne Leopard Creek di\'ersion W;1S llotilldudedinthisplClll. The name of Uv.: PleCes-int V<.lll"y Reservoir v..<lschang ed t'J D,,\la~ Dil'ide ReservQl\ but its locallOn,slzeand pur- pose remamd tile same. -Thereconj'laissanrere!)ort' proposed th~'t replacement swrDgefonheUncompailgre lands beprovidt->d on IheUn- compahgreRiverratherthan thatatRamshom Reservoir. ~. This is the {jf~emwtion m a Ridgway Reservoir. Mesa began to receive The site proposed for the serious consideration. dam was just upstream from The diversion of about 12,' the confluence of the river 400 acre-feet of water per and Dallas Creek at what year from the upper Canyon Bureau eogineers have come Cree'k drainage to the Dallas to refer to as the Morraine Feeder Canal through a 4.5 Site. It would have required mile long tunnel was studied. aD additional dike across the This proposal proved to be lower reach of Dal1as Creek. economically infeasible. The reservoir woold have Another look at Leopard . had a capacity of 160,000 Creek water was taken, but acre-feet and would have in- this waterwas fQUnd to be ad- undatedthetownofRidgway. judicated to users in the San Ramsllom Reservoir was Miguel Basin and, therefore, mentionedasapossiblealter- unavailable for exportation. native source of replacement Tbe most interesting plan water if Ridgway Reservoir studied during this period, was not, {or any reason, con- however, wasprobablyoneto structed. produce hydroelectric power Power Proposal in addition to irrigation. Mte-rpublication of U\e-1951 This plan called fortbecon- report, a period ensued in stroction of a reservoir in which the Bureau of Ironton Park on Red Moun- Reclamation studied a tain Creek. number of alternative plans. The water of the creek Pumping water from the Un-', would be supplemented by. a compahgre RivertoLo~.!IilI~1~r canal dehvenng ad. ditional supplies from the headwaters of the Uncom- pahgre River during the May through Octoberperiod. Releases from the reser- voir would be C{Jnveyed by a conduit and penstock to a powerplant located below the confluence of Red Mountain Creek and the Uncompahgre River in the Uncompahgre Gorge above Ouray. These power releases would be rediverted below the plant into a penstock leading to a second power plant in the town of Ouray. This system would have had an estimated capacity of 29,000 kilowatts and a poten- tial average annual output of as much as 38 million kilowatt hours of electricity. This power generation would not have interferred with the irrigation proposals being considered. and it was . to be added to the 1951 recon- I naissance plan. , Investigation of the dam . site in lronton Parkindi(:atf>o that it was not a geologi<:ally satiSfactory site. Thisfactandtbepossihilitv of a conflictoverwatcr riRht:~ with, Western CO!'Jrildfl Power Co. caused I.hl~ proposal to be dropped from ctlnsm.eration Storage Project . One of the big obstacles ir. the way of realizing a Il."tr,r . project for the UncompClh~re Valley was the littlematter(,f how to pay (or it. Contrary to popular belief 'Reclamation projects are nof 'a handout by Uncle Sam to the water users. The C<lSt flf the project mus,t eventu"lIf be repaid. This is somewhat of a problem for proposed iITlI!:Cl' til!n_dev.!.loJl:m~l!.!.s in high. (Continued on Page 161 __ BIGGEST CHAIN LINK. FENCE ~~ } SALE OF THE YEAR! Prices Cut 25% on Chain Link Fence Outfits'" Reduced from '78 farm and Garden Book 86~;n hl,h ........:rr- '.,.{1".:.. Y.:"t.'i ,'">1- '-I ProlY1ptier.ic., racto.y parh ./"(', '/\. "-" "'Outfit includes: 1. 11'/l gauge galvanized wire fabric with 2'(, x 2'(, in. mesh 2. 1 % in. outside diameter galvanized line posts (No line posts with orders less than 10 feet) Low as 42 in., 48 in., 60 in., 72 in., height> al,o on sale P~ICE PER fOOT 36-in. 1.1)) .86 I WAS NOW 42-in. L49 UI 48-in. ()().jn. 72-in. [WAS] 1.69 2.09 2.29 ~ L26 L56 Ln Wards Chain Link Fence pro\\~es privacy and protection at minimum cost 3. Aluminum loop cap for each line post 4. 1 % in. outside diameter galvanized top rail with connecting sleeves 5. Tie wires to attach fabric to top rail and line posts Outfit 'does not include end/gate and corner posts with fittings, walk or 'driveway gates. Order these at Ward:; everyday low prices. NOTE: Mec:;h and 0.0. rne[J~;uremPllb arC' <lpproximak. pending on top rail Placement and ground clearance. FpI1cP hpight will vary dc- Also S.'lve 25% on 9 g'auge galvanized #3447 and 9 gallge O.D vinyl clad #3434 fence outfits. Prices abo1'~' (In nnt !Ill'iud" !/an,<;purlatlOlI ONE STOP, ONf~ CALL... DOES IT ALL SHOP WARDS CATALOGS BUY WHAT YOU NEED NOW-USE CHARG.ALL FREE ESTIMATES, Export in,"lIotion ..oilllbl.. 22 So. Townsend 249.3454 ~,,'-';.. 4" ~ "....-- ,,,I '._'~-,