Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'1 [- I""": t~ <br />.; tJ . ~:~ <br /> <br />32 <br /> <br />RUED! DAM AND RESERVOIR, COLO. <br /> <br />Operation study <br />A monthly operation study of Ruedi Reservoir was m":de for the <br />l\)-year period August 1\)029 through July 1948. ThiS perIOd refleets <br />a eritic.~l period of water supply and a eomplete eyele of operation <br />as the reservoir would ha.ve been full at both the begmnmg and the <br />end of the period, a:; well as at some points in the interim. <br />The objeetive of the study was ta detem1ine the mauner and ex- <br />tent to which Ruedi Reservoir would meet the 2014 requirements <br />for mWlicipa1 and industrial water expected to re6ult. from com- <br />mercial oil shale development. The operation study indicates that <br />in crit.ieal years t.he total reservoir water yield would be needed <br />to meet those requirements. <br />In addition the reser,'oir would provide full repla.cement require- <br />ments as a. substitute for Aspen Re..sen'oir for the Fryingpan~Arkansas <br />project. '1lld the future Twm Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. diversions <br />lIlsofar as rights below Ruedi are concerned. The operation study <br />maintained the minimum fish flows in the Fryingplln Ri,'er of 3\) <br />e.f.~. November throuli' April, and 110 c.f.s. May through October <br />reeommended by the J!ish and 'Vildlife Sen'ice. The Fl:yingp"n- <br />Arkansas projeCt opemting prineiples provide tJ,at these flows be <br />m"intained immediately below the eonfluence of Roeky Fork and <br />the Fryingpan River a few hundre.d feet below Ruedi Dam; hence, <br />the estimated flows of Rocky Fork during the months of May, J line, <br />and .r uly were oonsidered llS being available to cont,ribute to fish-flow <br />requirements. <br />Operation study criteria provide for ot.her ,1l10wanees, ineluding <br />bypass of l'ffieITOir inflow during the irriga.tion season of ubout 8 <br />e.f.s. for decreed irrigation rights between the Ruedi Dllm site and <br />the mouth of the Fryingpan River, for decreed irrigation rights at <br />Cameo of 1,800 c.f.s. during the irrigation season, an,l for a decreed <br />power right at Cameo of 800 c.f.s. during the non irrigation se..'lson. <br />Only consumpt.ive-use requirements of municipa.l and indust,rial <br />water were considered" because additionu.l flows would be iwailuhle in <br />the Colorado Ri\'er tor diversion requirements. The ret.urn flow <br />from municipal and industrial use would enter the lire-I' above t.he <br />point of major existing use. <br />In the present. study, 1;\,er losse..." and control losses for municipa.l <br />and industrirLl releases from Ruedi R.eser\'oir were disregarded. 1\lore <br />detailed studies will consider t.hese matters. <br />A detailed study to determine t.he municipal and industrial supple- <br />mental water requirements for all years was not made. This would <br />have required a daily operation study of the entire Colorado River <br />system above Cameo. Howe,'er, such a detailed daily study was made <br />for tI,e years 1\)34 and 1944. These daily studies were based on as- <br />sumptions of" 300-second-foot. municipal and industrial consumptive- <br />use requirement (year 2014) and that. all exist.ing decrees inelllding <br />Denver's Blue River system were in full operation. The study also <br />assmned t.hat t.he potential Parshall unit, Eagle Divide unit . 'Vest <br />Divide unit, and Silt project were in operation. ' <br />The annlysis showed the municipal and industria.! wat.er. require- <br />ment from Ruedi Reservoir to be. 70,000 acre-feet in 1934 and 41,500 <br />