Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~?3JO <br /> <br />- 3 - <br /> <br />water to the users in the state and insure its share of a possible deficiency to <br />the 1~7er Basin States. ~s Colorado's share of the allocated water of the Upper <br />civision is 51.75 per cent, "hi~h is far greater than any other state of the <br />Upper Division, it is the duty of the State of Colorado to provide the largest <br />possible amount of Holdover Storage in order that in the future \/hen years of <br />deficient flow occur, this deficiency can be supplied 'aithout curtailing con- <br />sumptive use in the state. <br /> <br />Point ir 3 - Curecanti as a Holdover Storaee heservoir <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />A. The Gunnison rtiver is the largest triblltary to the Colorado River <br />Hitn both its source and its termination within the State of <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />B. The Curecanti Reservoir as presently proposed ,muld be high enough <br />On the rei vel' tc i-'rovide a ",aximum possible direct irrigation use <br />in Colorado. <br /> <br />Point #4 - Stream regJlation for the Diver can be best attained at the C~recanti <br />:I(,c~tion due to the convergence of the Gun:1ison River's largest tributaries di- <br />ere' :J.y into the neservoir. These tributDries are the Lake fod: of C,;le Gtmnison, <br />veb:,:,l,a Creek, and Tomicni Creek. The Gunr,ison River, itself, .,t .c:lis point in- <br />.:b'...es Ohio Creek, Taylor Ftiver, East River and Slate Creek. <br /> <br />A reservoir upstream from the Curecanti site TIould not control all of <br />these ",ain tributaries, and a reservoir b"lovl the Curecanti site \"Io'.lld not allow <br />reg~lation for irrirators drn'm strEam unless the reservoir was situated a~OVc <br />the p:-esent location of the Gum:ison Tunr.e1. <br /> <br />The Curecanti Reservoir has the lowest evaporation loss of any of the <br />Upper Colorado River Bas~r: pro,]F.cts, this loss being onlJ' 1.28 per cent, while <br />that of Glen Canyo:1 is 2.029 per cent, or a difference on 2-1/2 million A. F. <br />storage of 18,725 iI. F. annu211;,'. This loss \"Iould be charged to the Upper <br />Basin States. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Sil tation <br /> <br />Over a p~riod of 200 years, CureC9nti will lose only 1.54 per cent of its <br />active storage, while Glen Canyon will lose 47.27 per cent of its active storage <br />over the same period of time. Therefore, from a sound business standpoint, the <br />Curer.811~i project is far advantageous to Ulen Canyon. <br /> <br />Conclu.sion <br /> <br />The Upper BLsin "orrpact Ci ,es [ -eference in the use of recervoirs or re- <br />sen'oi r sites to si.Cc'&.ge for cor.:nmp~; 7e UL(. in the Upper Basip 0"er stor,".[;e to <br />&.ssur~ deliveries a~ Lee Ferry, The C~recanLi project me8~S this crit~rion. <br />