|
<br />1722
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
<br />FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO
<br />
<br />15
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />in Arizona. Colorado's apportionment or Colorado River Basin
<br />water is estimated to be about 3,855,000 acre-feet annually. It is
<br />estimated that about ] ,590,000 acre-feet will be required ror Use by
<br />existing and authorized projects, leaving 2,255,000 acre-feet annually
<br />for use by ruture projects. or this amount it is estimated that 440.000
<br />acre-feet should be reserved to meet Colorado's share of deplet,ions
<br />caused by main stem reservoirs required for long-t.ime hold-over
<br />storage to make the wate,r available for use under the Colorado River
<br />compact. About ],825,000 acre-feet annually would remain for use
<br />by potential projects. Thesc figures indicate the availability of
<br />about 1,750,000 acre-feet of water annually, arter rull development
<br />of the proposed initial development, Gunnison-Arkansas project, to
<br />meet. at her potential useS or Colorado River water iu Colorado.
<br />61. The 1947 report on the Colo<ado R,ver (H. Doc. 419, 80th
<br />Cong., 1st, sess.) shows estimated uses by potential irrigation projects,
<br />within the natural Colorado River Basin in Colorado, or 870,000
<br />acre-reet annually. Studies arc under way to refine the est,imate
<br />or potential within-basin uses in Colorado for 1111 purposes including
<br />industrial uses. Review of available information shows that t,he
<br />tot,al or all such potential uses will likely be less than the figure of
<br />],750,000 acre-feet.
<br />52. Present and prospective uses from Fryingpan River would be
<br />supplied by the bypass or wlltcr from the colleetiou cllnals. Storage
<br />releases rrom t,he Aspen Reservoir would replllce water diverted that
<br />would otherwise be needed by present and prospective users along
<br />the Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers.
<br />63. DIITing the, 1911-44 period or study the natmal water supply
<br />of the project area between Pueblo and the Colorado-Kansas boundary
<br />averaD'ed 1,143,000 acre-feet nnnually, including return flows but
<br />excluding about 48,000 Rcre-feet from eight trnDsmountain diversions.
<br />Disposition of the average annual supply was as follows:
<br />
<br />Disposition: .. .
<br />
<br />~l~:!:;j~;~~;,r~~~~~~~:::~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~:~:~:~:~:~~:~:~~~~~
<br />
<br />Olltflow to Ksllsas____ _ ___ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ ____ _ _ _____
<br />
<br />Arrt-fut
<br />6,56, 000
<br />160,000
<br />50,000
<br />277,000
<br />
<br />Total. ______ __ _____. __ ________ __ _. __ __ .____ _____ ____ __ _ 1, 143,000
<br />
<br />64. The estimated ideal head gate diversion requirements ciuring the
<br />irrigat.ion season average 983,000 acre-fecL. ReconsLructed daLa show-
<br />ing the effect 01 Twin Lakes diversion and the Johnl\1ortin Reservoir-
<br />had they been in operation for that entire period-disclose that the
<br />historical headgate diversions would have averaged 720,000 acre-feet
<br />seasonally, of whieh 543,000 acre-feet would be within the icieal
<br />ir~igotion schedule. The difference of 340,000 acre-reet rcpresents
<br />the avera~e annunl headgate shortage. Through optimum utilization
<br />of aU available Bupplies, new trafismOlmt.a.in diversions, and reuse or
<br />retlITn flows, th~ project could effeetuate an estimated supply of
<br />184,500 acre-feefor supplemental irrigation water at the can..1 heoo-
<br />gates in the main valley. That supply would reduce the average
<br />allllu..l headgate shortage to about 155,000 acre-reet-a reduction
<br />from 35 percent shortage of ideal requirements to about 16 percent
<br />shortage.
<br />
<br />I
<br />t
<br />
<br />.
<br />
|