3/30/90
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Raymond D. Nixon
2519 Prairie Road
Colorado Springs CO
80909
Ralph Adkins
Post Office Box 1928
Pueblo CO 81002
Edward W. Bailey
Manager, Water Division
City of Colorado Springs
Post Office Box 1103
Colorado Springs CO 80901
Alan C. Hamel
Executive Director
Board of-Water Works
of Puglo
Post Office Box 400
Pueblo CO 81002
'/Frank Milenski
23064 Road BB
La Junta CO 81050
Lee W. Simpson
St. Charles Mesa Water
Association
1397 South Aspen
Pueblo CO 81007
Roger Weidelman
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 449
Loveland CO 80539
Doug Cain
U.S. Geological Survey
Post Office Box 1524
Pueblo CO 81003
Steven J. Witte
Division Engineer
Water Division No. 2
Post Office Box 5728
Pueblo CO 81002-5728
•••••
Phil Boawn
Project Engineer
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 294
Pueblo CO 81002
Charles L. Thomson
General Manager
Southeastern Colorado
Water Conservancy District
Post Office Box 440
Pueblo CO 81002
Steven R. Clark
Project Manager
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 449
Loveland CO 80539
Rick Kidd
Acting Chief, Pueblo Field Division
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 515
Pueblo CO 81002
Carl Genova
33032 South Road
Pueblo CO 81006
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Review Committee
Meeting:
January 20, 1)69, 10 a.m., District riff ice
Pr000sPd Agenda:
A.
Estimated Supplemental Agricultural Damand for Winter Storage Program and
Project Water
B. Municipal Demand for Project Water
1. Present - 5,000 A.F.
2.
Near Term - 21,000 A.F.
3.
Ultimate - 41,000 A.F.
C. Estimates of Storable Winter Water at Pueblo Reservoir
0. Scenarios of Simulated Project Operation
E.
Discussion
F.
Other
. •
• ...•••• •.• • • •
/ • • • •
Fr!inigpan-;rkansas Project Review Comittee
J.eetinq:
january 20,
10, a.m., iistrict riff ice
Prcoosed.12enda:
A.
EstimarEd Supplemental Agricultural...
,mand for Winter Stcraqe Program and
Project Water
8. Xunicipal Demand for Project Water
C.
1.
Present - 5,030 A.F.
2.
Near Term - 21,000 A.F.
3.
Ultimate - 41,000 A.F.
•
Estimates of Storable Winter Water at Pueblo Reser
voir
D. Scenarios of Simulated Project Operation
E.
Discussion
F.
Other
-
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT
'REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING:
JULY 15, 1988
PROPOSED AGENDA
I. STATUS OF WORK SUMMARY ACTIVITIES
A.
ACREAGE/IRRIGATION DEMAND
B.
MODEL INPUT DATA
C.
MODEL
D.
OPERATION STUDIES
E.
PUEBLO DAM ENLARGEMENT
2>
f)
(2 0
.
//
II.
,00
/-
F&"-(
(3 (7-)
IN-KIND SERVICES ESTIMATE
0
-;
III.
OTHER
,JI
11::(
t
9r
IV.
/0,v
NEXT MEETING
o
39 )) '
;
-L
c
117
L: 1
6 01-
17 a
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS REVIEW COMMITTEE
February 17, 1988
Meeting:
Proposed Agenda
Introductions
I.
Status of MOU
•..
II.
A.
B.
C.
III.
IV.
V.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Schedule
Meetings with USGS/USBR
Data Requirements
Comparison of Present USBR Model with Run 40051
VI.
VII.
Other
Next Meeting
SOUTHEASTERN
COLORADO
Water Conservancy District
MINUTES
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
The first meeting of the recently appointed Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Review Committee consisting of representatives from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Southeastern Colorado
Water Conservancy District, was held Thursday, November 12, 1987, at 10:00 a.m., in the District Offices, 905 Highway 50 West, Pueblo, Colorado.
Attendance: Raymond D. Nixon, Chairman, Ralph Adkins, Lee Simpson, Frank Milenski and
Charles L. Thomson, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Robert Jesse, Division
Engineer; Doug Cain, U.S. Geological Survey; Gary Bostrom and Phil Tollefson, City of Colorado Springs; Ed Everaert, Roger Weidelman and Jack Garner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and
Alan Hamel, Pueblo Board of Water Works.
Chairman Nixon opened the meeting by thanking members of the Committee for their attendance at this important meeting, and noted that Mr. Lee Simpson, a member of the Board of
Directors of the District, had requested the opportunity to sit in as an observer, due to the
fact he was absent at the Board meeting when this Project was discussed. Mr. Nixon also
noted that Mr. Phil Tollefson represented Mr. Bailey as a member of the Committee, and Mr.
Gary Bostrom was an observer at the meeting. He said the Committee had been requested
by Mr. Raymond H. Willms, Project Manager, USBR, to develop specific plans for a complete
review of the operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, and that funding would come equally from the Bureau and the District.
Mr. Roger Weidelman of the Bureau said they have appropriated $60,000 in cash to be used
as their part of the program, and that the District would be expected to either put up an
equal amount in cash or in-kind services. He then presented a document marked Exhibit A
"Work Summary, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Arkansas River Basin, Colorado", which identified
a number of areas proposed to be included in the study. Mr. Nixon inquired as to whether
or not credit for in-kind services can be changed from time to time as the District and associated agencies develop new information. Mr. Weidelman acknowledged this is part of the plan.
Mr. Adkins suggested that the Bureau and the USGS meet at an early date to determine
whether each or both of the agencies have most of the information needed. Mr. Cain, representing Mr. Russ Livingston of the USGS, said he feels confident most of the information is
contained in the Management Model. Mr. Tollefson inquired as to the time frame expected
regarding M&I needs, and Mr. Nixon said that a period of ten years be established as the base
with projections for future use considered later. Mr. Milenski cautioned that care must be
taken to identify that Project water is "supplemental", and recommended that during the course
of the study consideration be given to the possibility of including hydroelectric power, which
can be developed as a part of the Project. Mr. Milenski said he is also anxious to have information developed as to exactly how the Project has operated since 1972, as compared to plans
which were developed in the 1950's and 1960's.
Mr. Tollefson suggested that data relative to all transmountain water in the Basin be included,
as well as changes as provided in recent Water Court Decrees. Mr. Milenski urged that consideration be given to establishing values on water and/or storage separately, and also a review
of pricing structure which would make Project water more competitive.
Discussion then. centered on a document "Exhibit B", which is an outline establishing credits
for in-kind services. After detailed discussion, it was agreed Mr. Weidelman of the Bureau
will hold early meetings with Mr. Livingston and Officials from the USGS to evaluate how
much of the necessary data is already available, and assign an in-kind cash credit. Meetings
will then be held with representatives from cities, agriculture, industries and others, and cash
credits will be assigned. It was agreed such meetings will consume most of the time through
November and December, and the next meeting of the Committee will be called by the Chairman in January.
Mr. Weidelman said new U.S. Bureau Policy requires that the District forward a check in the
amount of approximately one-fourth (-A) of the anticipated cash expenditure, which would be
set up in an escrow account to be used to pay necessary expenses. Mr. Nixon said this matter
would be brought to the attention of the Board of Directors at their November 19 meeting.
Chairman Nixon thanked the members of the Committee for their participation, and declared
the meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles
omson
General wager
CLT/mb
-2-
SOUTHEASTERN
COLORADO
Water Conservancy District
MINUTES
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Fry-Ark Project Review Committee was held Wednesday, September
21, 1988, at 1:00 p.m., in the District Offices, 905 Highway 50 West, Pueblo, Colorado.
ATTENDANCE: Chairman Raymond D. Nixon, Ralph Adkins, Alan Hamel, Kevin Pratt,
Robert Jesse and Charles L. Thomson, representing the District; Ray Willms, Eldon L. Johns,
Roger Weidleman, Don Frevert and Jack Garner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Gregg Nelson
and Russ Livingston, U.S. Geological Survey; Chuck Roberts, Acting Division Engineer; and
Phil Tollefson, Colorado Springs.
Chairman Nixon thanked the members of the Committee, and Officials from various agencies,
for their attendance at this important meeting, and called upon Mr. Roger Weidleman, Coordinator for the Development of Statistical data to report.
Mr. Weidleman said that since the last meeting participants had updated the data base by
extending the information from 1966 through 1985, and created new agricultural water require
ments, and simulated reservoir operations based upon actual statistics obtained. He said he
feels the computer program now reflects the Project as it actually exists, utilizing the information which was developed to create the Project. He said they have looked at the proposed
enlargement at Pueblo Dam, but will not finalize a conclusion until additional data is developed.
Mr. Weidleman and Mr. Johns, who developed the computer program for the Bureau, then presented a series of charts and graphs depicting the information and various results. Mr. Milenski questioned a number of the conclusions, and Mr. Weidleman said it will be necessary
that meetings be held with the entities involved, including the Catlin Canal Company, Colorado Canal Company and the Rocky Ford ditch. Mr. Thomson said he feels it would be more
valuable to concentrate on the Catlin and the Colorado Canal.
During discussion regarding agricultural demands, Mr. Tollefson suggested that alternative
pricing policies might be considered, and Mr. Milenski urged that consideration be given to
crop demands and water available through the Winter Storage Program. He also called attention to the change in ownership in agricultural water and lands, and suggested many of the
studies are based upon obsolete figures.
Mr. Willms complimented the members of the Committee for the work they have done thus
far, and agreed that meetings should be held with representatives from the agricultural interests to qualify some of the figures and conclusions, so all members will have confidence
in the final program. He said it will also be necessary to develop a program which will provide the opportunity to research different concepts for better utilization of the Project and
its water.
Mr. Weidleman said that as of August 1988 the Bureau of Reclamation has expended $51,000
of the Proposed Budget, and the District $5,000. He noted the District has paid $15,000 toward the total cost of the project. He observed that by October the Bureau will have expended $60,000, and the District between $25,000 and $30,000 in cash, and it will be determined by that time as to the credit for in-kind services.
Chairman Nixon then asked the pleasure of the members of the Committee as to the date
of the next meeting, and after discussion, it was agreed it will be held on Monday, December
12, 1988, at 1:00 p.m., in the District Offices.
Mr. Nixon then adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
7641,/
Charles
General
omson
ager
CLT/mb
-2-
SOUTHEASTERN
COLORADO
Water Conservancy District
MINUTES
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW COMMI11LE
A regular meeting of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Review Committee was held on Friday,
May 20, 1988 at 10:00 a.m. in the District Offices, 905 Highway 50 West, Pueblo, Colorado.
ATTENDANCE: Chairman Raymond D. Nixon, Ralph Adkins, Frank Milenski, Alan Hamel and
Charles L. Thomson from the District; Robert Jesse, Division Engineer; Ray Willms, Roger
Weidelman, Jack Garner and Don Frevert from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Gary Bostrom,
City of Colorado Springs; Russ Livingston and Greg Nelson, Subdistrict Office, U.S. Geological
Survey, Pueblo; Roy McAllister and Will Tully from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pueblo
Office.
Chairman Nixon opened the meeting by thanking all of the members for their attendance at
this important meeting, and called upon Mr. Roger Weidelman for progress reports.
Mr. Weidelman distributed a number of documents which were developed by the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation Model for a time period of 38 years, (1928 - 1965), and utilizing three different scenarios. He said each was run to identify different demands as between agriculture
and M&I, and relate to the operation of Pueblo Reservoir. Mr. Weidelman said he met with
representatives from the Cities of Colorado Springs and Pueblo, the USGS and the District on
May 2, and he is continuing to work with representatives from the USGS to discuss various
Computer Models.
Mr. Livingston and Mr. Nelson, from the USGS Office in Pueblo, then presented a series of
charts presenting information regarding water requirements from the major irrigation canals,
as related to the irrigated and nonirrigated lands. Mr. Milenski suggested the studies should
relate to the Rocky Ford Ditch Case, which incorporates many of the requirements in the
study. Chairman Nixon said it is essential that any study incorporate actual operations of
Pueblo Reservoir, particularly as it relates to proposals to increase storage capacity.
Mr. Weidelman then presented charts also related to water requirements dated May 19, 1988,
and said many of the averages were obtained from the W.W. Wheeler Report which was prepared for the State of Colorado to develop information for subsequent water legislation. Mr.
Milenski said he disagrees with a number of portions of that study, and recommended that the
acreages and water requirements be adjusted to reflect sales during the past ten years. Mr.
Weidelman agreed, and said they would take the methodology -which was used when the Project was developed, and apply it to the most recent five years. Mr. Frevert then explained
they are updating data on the original Model to include such information as the elmination
of the Otero Power Plant, and data related to the curtailment of imported Project water
when there is no storage space available. Mr. Thomson suggested it is essential that the new
information reflect the dumping of Winter water during the recent Winter Storage Programs,
and the inability to import decreed Colorado River water which is then lost to the system.
Mr. Weidelman completed his report by advising that studies on the Proposed Enlargement of
Pueblo Dam by Officials in Billings and Denver continue to show positive results. He said he
expects to have a detailed report on that issue for the June 23, 1988 meeting of the Board
of Directors of the District, and more specific information regarding utilization of space and
costs for the next meeting of this Committee.
Chairman Nixon then asked the pleasure of the members of the Committee as to the time
and date of the next meeting, and it was agreed it would be held on Friday, July 15, 1988
at 10:00 a.m. in the District Offices.
Chairman Nixon then declared the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m., and again thanked the
members for their diligent efforts in developing specific information which will provide a
meaningful report.
Respectfully,
Charles L
General
CLT/mb
a mson
ger
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 449
LOVELAND. COLORADO 80539-0449
TAKE
PRIDE!H________
AMERICA
MMEMMEMEMMEM
SIMMEMEMEMME
RECEI VIE
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
APR 27 1988
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Review Committee Members: SOUTHEASTERN
COLORADO WATER
CON.SERVANCY DISTRICT
Enclosed are tables and figures that I had hoped to use at the committee
meeting on April 20 and forgotten to bring. The data shown is generated by
the unmodified USBR model using the 1928-1965 (38 year) period. The
results of 3 scenarios are displayed. The scenarios are:
1. Run #31488; Municipal and Industrial (MI) demand for project water set
at 41,000 acre-feet per year; total valley irrigation requirement at Pueblo
averages 478,000 acre-feet per year.
2. Run #33088; M&I demand for project water reduced to zero; total valley
irrigation requirement reduced by 50 percent to an average of 239,000 acrefeet per year.
3. Run #33188; MI demand for project water reduced to zero; total valley
irrigation requirement reduced by 75 percent to an average of 119,500 acrefeet per year.
The total valley irrigation requirement at Pueblo as used in the USBR model
is defined as the estimated unsatisfied demand remaining after use of water
historically available to the entities in the Basin between Pueblo and John
Martin Reservoir pursuant to their respective direct flow and off-stream
storage decrees. This requirement is supplied water by the model from
three sources; (1) non-project water from Busk-Ivanhoe, Inc., CF&I, and
Twin Lakes, (2) stored winter water, and (3) project water.
Table 1 displays summaries of the Pueblo Reservoir Operation for the three
scenarios. The line entitled Irrigation Deliveries represents the average
annual delivery of project water for irrigation. Also, note that the
Irrigation Shortage is reduced to zero with the total valley irrigation
requirement at 25 percent of the original estimate:
The mandatory releases in Table 1 represent the average annual release at
Pueblo Dam required to satisfy senior downstream direct flow and off-stream
storage as such rights were exercised historically during the 38-year
study
period.
Table 2 displays summaries of the Winter Water Ownership and Project
Ownership. Note that the spill of winter water increases as the demand
for
project water is reduced. This is primrily due to the fact that the winter
water is being stored in the joint-use pool which has to be evacuated
by
April 15, prior to any demand.
2
Table 3 displays the estimates of the net project water delivered. These
quantities (77,100, 55,700, and 33,900 acre-feet) are comparable by definition to the 80,400 acre-feet that is displayed in the district's Allocation
Principles, Findings, Definitions, and Resolutions. The reduction in deliveries are solely a function of the reduction in the demand for project
water. The project import water and storable 1939 water are the same in
each scenario. The only change is in the demand which results in less
water delivered, greater spills, and higher reservoir contents.
The figures (8) display graphically the end-of-month contents of Pueblo
Reservoir for each of the above-described scenarios. The entire study
period, 1928-1965, is depicted on the series of eight figures. The reservoir storage depicted is that which is estimated to exist after 50 years of
sediment accumulation. The storage capacities currently and after 50 years
are shown below in acre-feet.
Current
Total
Flood Control
Joint Use
Conservation
Dead and Inactive
After 50 Years
357,700
305,300
(27,000)
(66,000)
(234,300)
(30,400)
(27,000)
(66,000)
(197,100)
(15,200)
The model simulated operation of Pueblo Reservoir resulted in the prereleasing (spilling) of winter water as follows:
Run #31488 - 6 years
Run #33088 - 23 years
Run #33188 - 35 years
Pueblo Reservoir storage reached the top of the joint-use pool (278,300
A.F.) at the end of March as follows:
Run #31488 - 2 years
Run #33088 - 6 years
Run #33188 - 19 years
The Reservoir storage reached the top of the conservation pool (212,300
A.F.) during the period April through October as follows:
Run #31488
6 years
Run #33088 - 23 years
Run #33188 - 35 years
This information has been developed and displayed principally to emphasiz
the sensitivity of the operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project opera-e
tion to the demand for project water, both irrigation and MM.
3
The numbers presented will change as the model is modified to reflect
the
current conditions, i.e., physical plan, allocation principles,
winter
water storage program, extended period of record (1966-1986), curtail
ment
of West Slope imports when such water is excess to the project
's needs,
etc.
As the Bureau and USGS models are modified to more appropriately
simulate,
the operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the demand
for and use
of water in the Arkansas River Basin, it is my hope that displays
such as
those enclosed will be useful in future discussions.
Any suggestion, advice, and/or guidance would be sincerely appreciated.
there are any questions, please call me at (303)667-4410.
Sincerely yours,
Chief, Planning Division
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
Enclosures
If
4/19/88
FRY-ARK OPERATION STUDY - TABLE 1
•
#31488
MODIFIED
BASELINE
M&I = 41.0
#33088
IRRIGATION
@ 50%
M&I = 0
628.3
627.5
626.9
STORABLE 1939 WATER
32.1
32.1
32.1
STORABLE WINTER WATER
80.3
80.3
80.3
MANDATORY RELEASES
384.4
384.4
384.4
TOTAL VALLEY IRRIGATION
REQUIREMENT @ PUEBLO
478.0
239.0
119.5
NON-PROJECT RELEASES
60.1
59.5
58.7
MI RELEASES
48.5
7.5
7.5
USEABLE M&I RETURN FLOW
21.7
3.2
-4.1
REMAINING IRRIGATION
REQUIREMENT
396.2
176.3
64.9
WINTER WATER RELEASED
69.3
50.8
17.4
IRRIGATION DELIVERIES
36.1
55.7
33.9
276.3
47.6
8.2
11.4
13.9
20.1
53.8
106.6
(1000 A.F.)
#33188
IRRIGATION
@ 25%
MI = 0
PUEBLO RESERVOIR OPERATION
TOTAL INFLOW
IRRIGATION SHORTAGE
NET EVAPORATION
RESERVOIR SPILLS
38-YEAR AVERAGES: (1928 - 1965)
0
4/1 9/88
FRY-ARK OPERATION STUDY - TABLE 2
(1000 A.F.)
#31488
MODIFIED
BASELINE
ME = 41.0
#33088
IRRIGATION
@ 50%
ME = 0
#33188
IRRIGATION
@ 25%
MI = 0
WINTER WATER OWNERSHIP
STORABLE WINTER WATER
80.3
80.3
80.3
2.4
. 2.4
1.8
396.2
176.3
64.9
WINTER WATER RELEASED
69.3
50.8
17.4
WINTER WATER SPILLED
8.5
27.1
61.0
NET PROJECT IMPORTS
68.9
68.9
68.9
STORABLE 1939 WATER
32.1
32.1
32.1
NET PROJECT CREDITS
101.0
101.0
101.0
EVAPORATION CHARGE
6.5
10.6
14.4
TRANSPORTATION CHARGE
6.0
5.9
5.9
41.0
0
0
REMAINING IRRIGATION
REQUIREMENT
326.9
125.5
47.5
IRRIGATION DELIVERIES
36.1
55.7
33.9
SPILL OF WATER
10.8
25.4
43.4
EVAPORATION CHARGE
REQUIREMENT
PROJECT OWNERSHIP
ME DELIVERIES
38-YEAR AVERAGES: (1928 - 1965)
•
-
.1,
4/19/88
FRY-ARK OPERATION STUDY - TABLE 3
AVAILABLE PROJECT
WATER (1000 A.F.)
#31488
MODIFIED
BASELINE
MI = 41.0
#33088
IRRIGATION
@ 50%
ME = 0
#33188
IRRIGATION
@ 25%
MI = 0
PROJECT IMPORTS
68.9
68.9
68.9
TRANSPORTATION CHARGE
-6.0
-5.9
-5.9
+32.1
+32.1
+32.1
NET
95.0
95.1
95.1
SPILL OF PROJECT WATER
-10.8
-25.4
-43.4
NET
84.2
69.7
51.7
EVAPORATION CHARGE
-6.5
-10.6
-14.4
CHANGE IN PROJECT STORAGE
-0.6
-3.4
-3.4
NET PROJECT WATER DELIVERED
77.1
55.7
33.9
IRRIGATION
(36.1)
(55.7)
(33.9)
M&I
(41.0)
(0)
(0)
STORABLE 1939 WATER
(38-YEAR AVERAGES:
1928 - 1965)
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
... 1
270
rma
240
i
f
‘
E-4
f '‘,..
.
210
I
.
...‘
180
•
t
•
•
•
150
•
1%
I 1
I'
t
.•
• 41
I
:
i
1
$
I
'
$f
I
: ••
I :
•
1
. ‘/
.
I :
I, I
.
t.,
I :
.-4 .••.•
l
•
-:
.
1 •
•
.
•
.
$
•
•
•
•
4 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
••
i
•
.
.
•
•
I.
?
•
1
,
h•
a
N
.
*‘
•
.
• ••• %
•
• . t
i
w
.•
•
•
•••
•
•
I.
/
•
•.
\
/
:
•
/
:
I
/
•
•
••
%
•
t
i
I
I
. %
• ‘
.
•
.
•
.
'
.
.
•
.
•
.
•
-
.. 1
:
.
.
.
\
•
•
•
•
•
1
%
1
!
1
•
I :
I :
I
•
•
• •.•
• •
i ••
30
•
•
•
1
0
I
I
I
1
i
1
60
•
I:
I:
I:
1.
)f
.
. .
I:
. .
.
•
•
. .
.
•• .
.
.
•
•
•
t :
•
•qh
•
•• •
• •
••
•••
120
0
fr1
•
•
•
A
.
• ;
'
s
90
r 7—* 1
I A
1'
I :3
I :
•3
1
• 1
. t
•
t I
• I
..
•
.
. %
.
.
..
s
.
•
.
.
•
.
•
•
•
••
1i
ODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ A
11 Ii111 Ii
WATER YEARS 1928 — 1932 BY MONTH
M&I = 41 FULL AGR • - M&1 = 0 AG at 50 — • Mad = 0 AG at 25
(#31488)
(#33088)
(#33188)
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
270
i
ill. 1
i
I
I
1
1
i
/
It
240
1
I
I
IIIIIIW
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
E-4
AM
210
I
I
iii....
i
.••.
•
/
.
I
•
•
•
/ :
•
i
%
•.
il
/
I
150
:
I
0 120
I
.
•
it
•
J
•
•
•
$
•
•
•
90
•
••
••
•
60
•
.
1
•
114
•
•
/
••
•
•
•
N
:
‘
•
•
I
.
I
a
••••
•
•
•
:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
111
•
I:
.. ••
I
•
•
•
•
•
a.
1 ..
i
I..
li
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1:
•
—
•
Jr
A-
ill
•
41 1
•••
.•
11,
•
•
•
•
•
•
9
•
•
I
I
i
•
I
•
•
.
•
•
I
•
..•
%
•
\
••
••
••
•
•
•
••
\e
•
•
•
1
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
a
•
•
•
•
•
i
••
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
••
•
••
•
•
I
••
•
•
•
•
•
:
I
.
0
,
;
.1a.
•
I
1
• t
A
4
•
I •.•••••
I
I
•
•
I
101
•
I
i
•
•
•
•
•
II
X
t
I
•
...•
/
1•
... #4
•
.
•• .•
I
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
.
30
i
/
%
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
:
•
I
•
•
•
I
1•
.
Sh... 114.
•
%
/
/
%
•
I
%
•
i
%
/
:21
i
•
/
180
•
•
•N
•I,
•
•
•
• %
•
.
e
11,
\
.
•t .
1
• .
•
S
•
•
a
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
li
%
•
•
••
••
$
•
•
•
•
•
•.
6:
l
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
I
11r- li1111
ODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODF
AJA
I
WATER YEARS 1933 — 1937 BY MONTH
M8c1 — 41 FULL AGR • • Mad = 0 AG at 50 — Mad = 0
AG at 25
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
.....
pa ime i
270
p.'
11
I
1
l
1
240
1
A
I 1
I
se
/
210
N
•
•... ..„,
I.
•$
•
. •..
/
/
150
120
st
/
i
180
/
•
.
.:.
i
i
i
90
60
•
.
•
•.
..
...
.
••
..
•
a
•
•
,
•
••
.
.-
.
.
.
.
••
.
•
•••
•
.
6
I
•
.
.
•
.
I
•••••i
.
4
• %...- %
:
%.•
.
.. IL
:
.. I
••
:
.
••
••
.
.
•
•
.
.•
•
.•
i
I
1
E-4
1
el
i
at
/%
/ \
/
1
/
%
/
•
.
•
.
• 1
.
'
'
4 lbw
1
/
/
/
/
•
.
•
•• e.
•
..
•
.
.•
••
. .
.
• .
•
•
•
I.
•
i .
•
••• %
/
a••
/
.
.
•
•
.
N
%
•
.
i
•
•
\
\
.
••„,
r
i
.
t
i
.
• I
1
•
%
:
i
•
•
_ %
k i
i .•
........
,
/..:.4
•.
•
.
•
.
1
1
I
1
.
%.
.
•
•
s• .
.•
•.
.•
N....•
•
•
•.. .•
.•
.. :
•• ••
••
e•
••
•
•
•
•
30
I:
t
•
I
•
.
4
•
•
.
•
.
.
•
•
•
.
•
i ••
I
r
I
1(1111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111(1111
ODFAJAODFAJAODFA111
JAODFAJAODFAJA
WATER YEARS 1938 - 1942 BY MONTH
— Mad = 41 FULL AGR • • M&I = 0 AG at 50 - • Mad
= 0 AG at 25
I
1
1
••••••••111110,
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
...•
Oft MO
270
„
r
240
E
210
e
1.•
C
L
C
I: I
C
i:
.
.
180
150
o 120
90
0
A
l 1
I I
1 1
1
t
I
t
i
:.i
/
, : ""%
1
il
ll
i
1
L
t
i
'X
..%
.a. .
I
i
:•L
v.%..
•-
/ :
•
i :
•
i:
/i
• t
.
• t
.
/ •
s
• . .
•a
.
.
.
.
•
•
.
•
.
:
•
•
••
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
6
•
•
•
, i
•
••
'
.
•
.
s
•
.•
:
.
••..•
1.1 .
:
•
•
••
•
•
.
i
.
:
•
••
•
,s
•
•
.
•
•
•
.
.• t
'. %i„..........//
r..
...• •I
i''
1
I:
, I
I
1:
I
i:
i
1
1
i;
i t
i
1
i•t.
1
i.t
,
‘
/I
s:• ''''''%
.
:
$
.••. •.
•%. i.
.•
.
•
A
••.
st
.
•‘
•• N
60
•
'
•
..
1.
•
s
/ .
•
• .
•'• .
/ •
•
• % 1
:
•
:
•
11
•
.
•
••
.
.
s
••
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.6
.
*. %
•.
i:
1.•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
S
30
1tifiliiiiiiiirifirilitilitil1111rlirTiiiiiirltrit
TiT11
11111
ODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODFAJA
WATER YEARS 1943 — 1947 BY MONTH
— MIA = 41 FULL AGR • • M8c1 = 0 AG at 50 — • Wel = 0 AG at 25
•
•
•
Is
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
OM
270
240
E84
4
210
180
1
el
4
1'
,II1
( I
1 :• 1
/1
1
/ .•
1
.
1
i;
1
I:
t
1i
I,
.
•
•
.
:
I
I
1 I1
I •.••1
i :
. .4
-‘,
,
t .'
V
i
.\
.t
.%
.%
150
i
0 120
c.)
x
90
0
r4
60
I
1
- 1
.
-
e II''-i
/ .•
1 .• 1i
/ • '
:1
: 1
1:
1
I •
i
• i
N.:‘
Pi 1
1
1
1
1
I
A
1t
/ %. 4.
1
1
i
/
/
i
1
t
...1
. >
/ ••-..v.. N
1
,
11
.
I
I.
._.
:..%
. \
/
I:
.'
I ;
•
.
I
4
•I
:
•
.%
I
.
I
:
.%
•
'
I :
1
.
I
.
•._
.1
;
I.
.
I
. %
..
:
I:
:
:
.• t ,..
•
i •
•
•
•
%••
I:
.
.
•
-.... %
I :
.
I:
• :
.
:
•
I :
'
•
.• — r.
.:
. ., ;
•
.•
••
•
•• ••
••
•••
•• ••
sb
•
•
,• •
•
••
••
.• ••
•• :
.• .••
•• ••
s•
.•
••s.;•.
•
•
•
•
;
••
•••
•_
_••
••
s ••
.
.. ••
.
•
..
..
••
A
:\
'
1
i
s
•
•
.
'
IL
N
%
.
-.
.
••
•
••
••
.
:
••
••
••
30
0
1ltiii)iiiitilmitiiiiriiii1ii1ii11111 -1-
1 1 1 Itiiiiiiiiir 11
ODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODFAJA
ODFAJA
WATER YEARS 1948 — 1952 BY MONTH
Macl = 41 FULL AGR • • Mad = 0 AG at 50 — • Mad = 0
AG at 25
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300 _
...........___..................._
r1
270 —
.
.
I I
i
I
-,...m...i.........
..J
240
I
S
i
I
I
••i
it
,t
I I
t
I
i
I
............7_,..1,-._
210
i
180
.•
'A
.
.
150
i
.. %
,:
•
;
e •. I
•. t
.
...
/ :
• k
%1
1
V
•••
•
•
•
i
V
•
•
6
V
•
:
•
V
•
i
•
•
•
..
V
i
..
i
•
b
0
•
'
:
1
.. i
••
.•
1
V
•
•
••
V
t
•
•
/
•
1
V
•
V
•
•
/
:
V
1
•
V
:
/
•
•
•
•
•
•
V
1
•
•
•
V
•
•
••
•
.0
•
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
••
i
t ••..• •
•
•
60
.•
..--
1
V
•
V
:
•
,
i
:
1
•
•
•
•
rx4
i
•
t
i
•
.
•
i
/
•
•
•• •• %
/
1
.
90
•
V
•
•
:
...,
... ... i
•
•
•
•
•
...,
1
t
t
t
t
%
t
1
. — i
-.••• •••• t
i
•
•
120
..•
t
/
•
•
:
•
•
•
•
V
•
•
L• 1
:
•
•
.•
:
•
•
•
••
:
•
i
.
•
•
6
30
•
•
•
•
•
.•
•
•
.0
I
i
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
•
•
•
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I .
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
r
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
ODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ A
WATER YEARS 1953 — 1957
M&I = 41 FULL AGR • • Mad = 0 AG at 50 — • M8c1 = 0 AG at 25
1
I
fr,
1
•
I
1
,
‘
.1.0011.01•1.1
Wt.
.11J`t..../1.11.11.01.011=FIPININ.b.
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
....VINM 4..........IMe....1.1.
,
MOPOINIP.M.IM WED
OM/......n...0. ....4..............-......r.......
A4
270
EOM CONTENT IN TAF
t
1
I 1t
I •..t
.
t . .I
I .• .4•
240
210
0-1
I t
t t
t
t
i
t
.t
i
t
t
t
t
(
i•
.N
: •
,1
r - 1 ...m._t_
........_.......
.
1
1
t
I
1
..._.1.......,
t
t
:
.t
t
• •,
I
.
tl
tt
1
t
....,...,
t
t
t
.
N
•
•
.
‘
i
/:
•
..
180
t
:
/ '
.
•
-
•
•
. •
/
t
'
;
•
/
/
:
: I
•
150
•
:
t
/
•
:
t
.
.
s
,
t
t
•
•
_I_
:
•
1
.1
/
.
•
.
.
:
- 1
.
•
:
i'
A
i.
.
.
.
/
/
'.
i
.
t
• 1
/
%
.".
.
/
:
/.
•
•
.
.
/
t
.
.A
-,
:
;
.
,
,
/
•
•
•
120
•
•
/
1
•
•
I
/
:
•
/
:
.
.
.
.
•
/
•
.
*
.
•
•
•
•
.
•
:
..
•
90
.
:
:
:
•
•
:
.
*.
:
.
.
•
.
;
•
•
.
•
.
•
.
•
•
•
•
:
60
.
'
•
•
.
•
:
% .
.
.
.
•
.
•
.
%.
.
:
•
•
30
:
.•
..:
.
O
r
11 1 1 I I II I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11IIII
A
ODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ A
WATER YEARS 1958 — 1962 BY MONTH
M&I = 41 FULL AGR • • MScl = 0 AG at 50 — Mad = 0 AG at 25
arm a.m.%.4.•••
wrimaramera Jar
111.01.....11110.M111.1.....0111000.
•
risrlIW.IMMINNI...111.1,010.......... VW
•
.0.O.!
41.0
,
..",=PO*
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
11.&:::Turn.0.11
armnarstromisi ass.ass ora..P.mg-
EOM CONTENT IN TAF
270
.1.1.../P/1/111•416.
240
210
.e.
•
180 150
‘11=1.110
•
•
•
•
•
120
90
60
30
1MORINP.Sarririble.
0 ONDJ
„„FMAMJ
„„
„
„
„
J ASONDJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ
WATER YEARS 1963 — 1965 BY MONTH
M&1 = 41 FULL AGR • - M8c1 = 0 AG at 50 — M&I = 0
J AS
AG at 25
•
yE 11111111=
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 449
LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539-0449
LN REPLY
REFER TO:
E-700
DEC 29 1988
PZDEis
AMERICA ainimmaza
milm.m.mmummm
immoommimmm
mommommummo
mum
Es
as
a
RECEIVED
DEC 30
zwissufi coLoRAao zgra.3
Fry-Ark Project Review Committee Members
x:CY ()WM
r
Since the last meeting of the committee on September 21, 1988, the Reclamation
staff has been refining the estimates of the demand for supplemental irrigation
water from the project and modifying the computer program that is being used to
simulate the operation of the East Slope Facilities.
The material enclosed with this letter presents information and displays data
concerning the estimates of the demand for supplemental irrigation water.
Several tables are enclosed with explanations to follow in the letter.
Over the past year as we have progressed with the review there has been some
indication that the estimates of the demand for supplemental irrigation water
have been "overstated" for a variety of reasons. Table 1 presents a summary of
the project water allocations to the nine canal systems generally requesting the
more significant quantities of water. The table displays data from the years,
1982 through 1988 because 1982 was the first year of water deliveries pursuant
to the terms and provisions of the master contract, as amended. Also shown on
Table 1 is the water year runoff of the Arkansas River at Portland and the precent of average each water year was of the 20-year average for the period, 1966
through 1985.
Table 2 displays all of the 1988 data for the nine entities including winter
water available at Pueblo, winter water delivered, winter water remaining in
storage on September 30, 1988, allocated project water, project water delivered,
undelivered project water as of September 30, 1988, and the total water delivered (both winter and project water).
Since 1982, 1988 was the year having the greatest allocation of project water to
the irrigation entities. It also was the only year with below average runoff
(74 percent - Arkansas River at Portland). A number of factors influenced the
decisions by the entities to request and utilize the displayed amounts winter
and project water in 1988 including the below, average runoff, availability of
project water, and the much improved prices paid for agricultural commodities in
the Arkansas River Valley. As a result it may be speculated that 1988 might
represent a year in which the entities sought and used combined amounts of
winter and project water which approached the maximum total quantity of water to
be utilized by the irrigation entities in any given year.
Assuming that the above speculation is valid, Table 3 was developed. A series
of footnotes accompanying the table describes the means of developing the data.
Two points need emphasis: (1) The assumed maximum annual demand expressed in
inches per acre at Pueblo Dam was arbitrarily established; and (2) The assumed
I
2
maximum annual demand expressed in thousands of acre-feet at Pueblo Dam represents the maximum amount each entity may be expected to take delivery of in any .
given year for purposes of the model simulation of project operation.
It should be noted that real-time circumstances will likely occur in the future
whereby one or more of the entities may desire to obtain amounts water greater
than the assumed "maximums" displayed in any given year. The use of the term
"maximum" in the context of this study effort should not be interpreted in such
a manner that these amounts can never be exceeded. Finite data are required for
the model and use of these assumed "maximums" appears reasonable.
It should be emphasized that these quantities represent estimates of the Total
supplemental irrigation water requirement for each of the entities on the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Therefore, the sources of water from the project are
the winter water storage program (Pueblo storage) and/or project water.
Table 4 displays average annual data representing the 20-year period, 1966
through 1985. The column entitled Average Annual Supplemental Agricultural
Water Demand displays quantities less than the "maximums" displayed on Table 3
due to the fact that these quantities are averages for the 20-year period. The
column entitled Acre-Feet Per Share displays the average amount of water per
share that would have been available during the 20-year period if a full supply
of supplemental water was provided to each entity in addition to it's average
historic diversion.
Table 5 displays the Estimated Supplemental Irrigation Water Requirements at
Pueblo Dam by entity for each year of the 20-year period. Quantities less than
the assumed "maximums" are estimates from either the Geological Survey or
Reclamation databases.
This data will be used in the model simulations of the project operation that
will be shared with the committee at the next meeting.
If there are any questions or comments, please call me at (303) 667-4410.
Sincerely,
e
Roger A. Weidelman
Chief, Planning Division
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
Enclosures
..
Table
1
Revised
PROJECT WATER ALLOCATIONS 1/
SYSTEM
12/20/88
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Bessemer Ditch
3,000
0
0
3,000
5,700
600
6,500
Colorado Canal
10,200
0
0
0
164
2,093
3,140
High Line Canal
5,000
0
0
0
2,500
3,000
8,500
750
0
0
877
1,150
0
1,200
Otero Ditch
1,130
0
0
0
1,000
500
1,500
Catlin Canal
4,000
0
0
0
5,000
0
12,000
Holbrook Canal
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
10,000
Ft. Lyon Canal
17,500
0
0
0
0
0
28,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46,580
0
0
3,877
15,514
6,193
70,840
569.1
906.6
954.7
916.5
741.1
752.4
414.4 3/
158
166
159
129
131
1988 2/
)
Oxford-Farmers
Las Animas
Total
Water Year.
Runoff-Arkansas
River at Portland
(1000 A.F.)
Percent of 20-year
Average
(1966-1985)
99
1/ SOURCE:
SECWCD ANNUAL REPORTS
2/ SOURCE:
RECLAMATION
3/ PROVISIONAL DATA
,
74
,
Table
2
Bessemer
12/20/88
1988
Winter
Water
Available
at Pueblo
Winter
Water
Delivered
9,419.33
9,187
__
Colorado
High Line
Oxford-Farmers
Balance
9/30/88
0
__
1988
Allocated
Project
Water
Project
Water
Delivered
6,500
6,500
0
15,687
3,140
1,819
1,321
1,819
Balance
9/30/88
Total
Water
Delivered
13,619.82
13,319
0
8,500
8,350
150
21,669
2,628.07
1,176
1,342
1,200
1,200
0
2,376
__
--
1,500
1,500
0
1,500
Otero
Catlin
9,470.75
6,755
2,326
12,000
7,000
5,000
13,755
Holbrook
2,500.00
2,465
0
10,000
7,103
2,897
9,568
28,000
28,000
0
28,000
Ft Lyon
__
Los Animas
--
Subtotal
West Pueblo Riverside
Total
....
all OM
37,637.97
32,902
3,668
412.03
159
232
38,050.00
33,061
3,900
70,840
61,472
9,368
OM M.
94,374
Table
3
Revised 12/20/88
Sheet 1 of 2
Total
Shares
1/
USBR
Irrigable
Acres
1988
Winter
Water
Delivered
A.F.
1988
Project
Water
Delivered
A.F.
9,187.00
6,500
15,687
9
1,819
1,819
9
Total
Assumed
1988
Maximum
Water
Annual
Delivered
Demand 7/
A.F.
Inches/Acre
Assumed
Maximum
Annual
Demand 8/
1000 A.F.
Bessemer
20,000
23,526
Colorado
49,639 2/
43,009
High Line
2,2503/
24,839
13,319.00
8,350
21,669
9
18.6
Oxford-Farmers
1,196 4/
6,060
1,176.00
1,200
2,376
9
4.5
Otero
9,110 5/
6,681
1,500
1,500
6
3.3
17.6
4.8 9/
Catlin
18,660
19,329
6,755.00
7,000
13,755
9
14.5
Holbrook
16,003
17,526
2,465.00
7,103
9,568
9
13.1
Ft Lyon
93,989
97,273
28,000
28,000
6
48.6
6
3.4
Las Animas
TOTALS
8,5036/
6,792
245,035
32,902.00
61,472
94,374
128.4
.
•
. .
m
Preliminary
freumai
y
Subject to Review and Revision
•
Revised 12/20/88 .
Sheet 2 of 2
-
1/
Data provided by Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
2/
7,370.835 shares (15 percent) remain in agriculture. (11/21/88)
3/
1 share to 10 acres.
4/
1 share to 5 acres (assumed)
5/
4973.12 shares are considered active.
6/
Las Animas Consolidated: 5586 shares
Las Animas Extension:
2917 shares
7/
The assumed maximum annual demand for supplemental irrigation water is
expressed in inches per acre at Pueblo Dam, the point of delivery for project water. The respective amounts for each entity were estimated somewhat
arbitrarily using 1988 as an example of a year during which a number of
factors, i.e., hydrologic, crop prices, cost of water, etc., generated the
greatest use of project water since it has been available.
8/
The assumed maximum annual demand for supplemental irrigation water at
Pueblo Dam expressed in units of 1000 acre-feet is estimated by multiplying
the USBR irrigable acreage by the assumed inches per acre and dividing by
12.
The display of these quantities as representing maximum annual demands by
entity should not be interpreted by the district or its member entities
that these demands may never be exceeded. Circumstances in any given year
may create conditions such that one or several of the entities may request
amounts of water greater than these assumed maximums.
9/
The assumed maximum demand for the Colorado Canal is estimated for 15 percent of the USBR acreage (43,009 X 0.15 X .75 = 4800). The 15 percent is
the percentage of the total shares remaining in agriculture. If all the
Colorado Canal were to remain in agriculture, the assumed maximum demand
for water is estimated to be 32,200 acre-feet.
Preliminary
Table
Subject to Review and Revision
4
12/20/88
Revised
Avg. Annual
Historic
Diversions
(1966-85)
T.A.F.
Avg.
Historic
Diversions
(Apr-Oct)
T.A.F.
Bessemer
58.0
51.2
11.7
20,000
3.1
Colorado
87.1
73.6
32.2 8/
49,639
2.1 (2.4) 7/
High Line
80.9
67.7
5.2
2,250 3/
32.4
Oxford-Farmers
23.5
. 20.3
2.9
1,196 4/
19.4
5.7
5.0
3.3
4,973 5/
1.7
Catlin
82.8
69.6
8.8
18,660
4.2
Holbrook
42.0
31.7
11.5
16,003
2.7 (3.4) 7/
265.9
193.5
18.2
93,989
2.3 (3.0) 7/
29.7
24.9
2.1
8,503
588.5
463.9
Otero
Ft Lyon
Las Animas
Total
Avg. Ann.
Supplemt.
AG Water
Demand 1/
T.A.F.--
95.9 9/
Number
of
Company
Shares
2/
AcreFeet
Per Share
6/
3.2
,Mlb EMI
MID WO
1/ 9 CANAL SYSTEMS
2/
PROVIDED BY SECWCD
3/
1 SHARE TO 10 ACRES
4/
1 SHARE TO 5 ACRES (Assumed)
5/
ACTIVE SHARES - TOTAL SHARES ARE 9110.25.
6/
AVERAGE HISTORIC (APR-OCT) DIVERSIONS AND ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL
SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DEMAND.
AVERAGES BASED ON PERIOD, 1966-1985.
7/
CALCULATED WITH AVERAGE ANNUAL. DIVERSIONS (TWELVE MONTHS).
AVERAGES BASED ON PERIOD, 1966-1985.
8/ THIS QUANTITY REPRESENTS DEMAND ASSUMING COLORADO CANAL IS 100 PERCENT AGRICULTURE. WITH 15 PERCENT OF THE SHARES REMAINING IN AGRICULTURE. THE
DEMAND IS ESTIMATED TO BE 4,800 A.F.
9/
THIS TOTAL WOULD BE 68,500 A.F. IF ONLY THAT DEMAND ASSOCIATED WITH 15
PERCENT OF THE COLORADO CANAL SHARES REMAINING IN AGRICULTURE (4,800 A.F.)
IS INCLUDED.
Table
5
12-21-88
Estimated Supplemental Irrigation Water Requirement
at Pueblo Dam
Arkansas River Basin
(1000 A.F.)
Calendar
Year
Bessemer
Ditch
Oxford
Farmers
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
16.3
13.7
10.1
14.5
7.0
13.6
17.1
5.8
16.3
16.3
17.5
17.6
17.6
4.1
9.8
17.6
0.9
5.3
5.3
7.0
3.2
2.1
3.2
2.0
2.2
4.4
4.5
3.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.7
2.5
4.5
0.9
0.1
0
0
Totals
233.4
57.4
11.7
2.9
Average
Otero
Canal
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3.
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
Catlin
Canal
Holbrook
Canal
14.5
11.8
0.7
10.7
5.9
3.9
14.5
0.5
14.5
9.1
14.5
14.5
14.5
3.6
12.5
14.5
2.6
7.9
2.1
3.8
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
1.4
7.1
0
13.1
66.0
176.6
231.2
3.3
8.8
11.5
Fort
Lyon
Canal
0.5
7.7
3.7
0
0
2.1
36.1
25.3
48.6
43.1 ,
48.6
48.6
23.5
0
8.6
48.6
9.9
9.3
0
0
Las
Animas
Rocky
Ford
Highline
Colorado
Canal
Total
3.4
0.3
0
0
0.1
0.6
3.4
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
0
3.4
3.4
3.0
2.6
0.6
1.0
8.1
2.3
8.2
0.2
3.0
2.6
0.7
5.3
8.5
6.4
4.7
7.5
7.2
4.3
4.4
10.2
2.5
9.2
5.0
3.3
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
94.6
86.5
74.5
76.0
66.8
75.8
124.9
92.1
144.4
131.4
141:8
144.7
119.3
62.3
0.8
147.4
56.7
77:0
48.5
63.7
_
364.2
41.8
103.6
644.0
1918.2
18.2
2.1
5.2
32/2
95.9 1/
1/ Average total would be 68,500 A.F. with the 15 percent of Colorado Canal agricul
tural shares having
a demand (4,800 A.F.) for supplemental water.
in
a
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
TAKEi="
PRIDE IN
AMERICA
11==========
IME=M3===
1111131==111=3
11:3121=1
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 449
LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539-0449
LN REPLY
REFER TO:
E-700
1E3
DEC 29 1988
Fry-Ark Project Review Committee Members
Since the last meeting of the committee on September 21, 1988, the Reclamation
staff has been refining the estimates of the demand for supplemental irrigation
water from the project and modifying the computer program that is being used to
simulate the operation of the East Slope Facilities.
The material enclosed with this letter presents information and displays data
concerning the estimates of the demand for supplemental irrigation water.
Several tables are enclosed with explanations to follow in the letter.
Over the past year as we have progressed with the review there has been some
indication that the estimates of the demand for supplemental irrigation water
have been "overstated" for a variety of reasons. Table 1 presents a summary of
the project water allocations to the nine canal systems generally requesting the
more significant quantities of water. The table displays data from the years,
1982 through 1988 because 1982 was the first year of water deliveries pursuant
to the terms and provisions of the master contract, as amended. Also shown on
Table l_is the water year runoff of the Arkansas River at Portland and the precent of average each water year was of the 20-year average for the period, 1966
through 1985.
Table 2 displays all of the 1988 data for the nine entities including winter
water available at Pueblo, winter water delivered, winter water remaining in
storage on September 30, 1988, allocated project water, project water delivered,
undelivered project water as of September 30, 1988, and the total water delivered (both winter and project water).
Since 1982, 1988 was the year having the greatest allocation of project water to
the irrigation entities. It also was the only year with below average runoff
(74 percent - Arkansas River at Portland). A number of factors influenced the
decisions by the entities to request and utilize the displayed amounts winter
and project water in 1988 including the below average runoff, availability of
project water, and the much improved prices paid for agricultural commodities in
the Arkansas River Valley. As a result it may be speculated that 1988 might
represent a'year in which the entities sought and used combined amounts of
winter and project water which approached the maximum total quantity of water to
be utilized by the irrigation entities in any given year.
Assuming that the above speculation is valid, Table 3 was developed. A series
of footnotes accompanying the table describes the means of developing the data.
Two points need emphasis: (1) The assumed maximum annual demand expressed in
inches per acre at Pueblo Dam was arbitrarily established; and (2) The assumed
2
maximum annual demand expressed in thousands of acre-feet at Pueblo Dam represents the maximum amount each entity may be expected to take delivery of in any
given year for purposes of the model simulation of project operation.
It should be noted that real-time circumstances will likely occur in the future
whereby one or more of the entities may desire to obtain amounts water greater
than the assumed "maximums" displayed in any given year. The use of the term
"maximum" in the context of this study effort should not be interpreted in such
a manner that these amounts can never be exceeded. Finite data are required for
the model and use of these assumed "maximums" appears reasonable.
It should be emphasized that these quantities represent estimates of the Total
supplemental irrigation water requirement for each of the entities on the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Therefore, the sources of water from the project are
the winter water storage program (Pueblo storage) and/or project water.
Table 4 displays average annual data representing the 20-year period, 1966
through 1985. The column entitled Average Annual Supplemental Agricultural
Water Demand displays quantities less than the "maximums" displayed on Table 3
due to the fact that these quantities are averages for the 20-year period. The
column entitled Acre-Feet Per Share displays the average amount of water per
share that would have been available during the 20-year period if a full supply
of supplemental water was provided to each entity in addition to it's average
historic diversion.
Table -5 displays the Estimated Supplemental Irrigation Water Requirements at
Pueblo Dam by entity for each year of the 20-year period. Quantities less than
the assumed "maximums" are estimates from either the Geological Survey or
Reclamation databases.
This data will be used in the model simulations of the project operation that
will be shared with the committee at the next meeting.
If there are any questions or comments, please call me at (303) 667-4410.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Weidelman
Chief, Planning Division
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
Enclosures
nited States Department of the Interior'
d
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 449
LOVELAND, COLORADO 805394449
•arch 3
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
DEC 29 1988
B-700
Fry-Ark Project Review Committee Members
The enclosed Tables 4 & 5 replace those received with my letter of
December 29, 1988.
Sincerely,
eyva.itia%
Roger A. Weidelman
Chief, Planning Division
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
Enclosures 2
„..
•
TAKE
PR[DEItJ
AMERICA ingwesemi
immummaillms=
smanassionEmsmia
ommismoimesi
MEM
NM
MN
•
oz.
Preliminary
sutecttoReview and Revisioa
Table
12/29/88
Revised
4
Number
of
Company
Shares
2/
Avg. Annual
Historic
Diversions
(1966-85)
T.A.F.
Avg.
Historic
Diversions
(Apr-Oct)
T.A.F.
Bessemer
58.0
51.2
11.7
20,000
3.1
Colorado
87.1
73.6
32.2 8/
49,639
2.1 (2.4) 7/
High Line
80.9
67.7
5.2
2,250 3/
32.4
Oxford-Farmers
23.5
20.3 •
2.9
1,196 4/
19.4
Otero
5.7
5.0
3.3
4,973 5/
1.7
Catlin
82.8
69.6
8.8
18,660
4.2
Holbrook
42.0
31.7
11.5
16,003
2.7 (3.3) 7/
Ft Lyon
265.9
193.5
18.2
93,989
2.3 (3.0) 7/
29.7
24.9
2.1
8,503
675.6
537.5
Las Animas
Total
Avg. Ann.
Supplemt.
AG Water
Demand 1/
T.A.F.
AcreFeet
Per Share
6/
3.2
95.9 9/
1/ 9 CANAL SYSTEMS - (From Table 5)
2/
PROVIDED BY SECWCD
3/
1 SHARE TO 10 ACRES
4/
1 SHARE TO 5 ACRES (Assumed)
5/
ACTIVE SHARES - TOTAL SHARES ARE 9110.25.
6/
AVERAGE HISTORIC (APR-OCT) DIVERSIONS AND ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL
SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DEMAND.
AVERAGES BASED ON PERIOD, 1966-1985.
.••
7/ CALCULATED WITH AVERAGE ANNUAL DIVERSIONS (TWELVE MONTHS).
AVERAGES BASED ON PERIOD, 1966-1985.
8/
THIS QUANTITY REPRESENTS DEMAND ASSUMING COLORADO CANAL IS 100 PERCENT AGRICULTURE. WITH 15 PERCENT OF THE SHARES REMAINING IN AGRICULTURE, THE
DEMAND IS ESTIMATED TO BE 4,800 A.F.
9/ THIS TOTAL WOULD BE 68,500 A.F. IF ONLY THAT DEMAND ASSOCIATED WITH 15
PERCENT OF THE COLORADO CANAL SHARES REMAINING IN AGRICULTURE (4,800 A.F.)
IS INCLUDED.
Table
5
Revised 12-29-88
Estimated Supplemental Irrigation Water Requirement
at Pueblo Dam
Arkansas River Basin
(1000 A.F.)
2
Calendar
Year
Bessemer
Ditch
Oxford
Farmers
Otero
Canal
Catlin
Canal
Holbrook
Canal
Fort
Lyon
Canal
Las
Animas
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
16.3
13.7
10.1
14.5
7.0
13.6
17.1
5.8
16.3
16.3
17.5
17.6
17.6
4.1
9.8
17.6
0.9
5.3
5.3
7.0
3.2
2.1
3.2
2.0
2.2
4.4
4.5
3.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.7
2.5
4.5
0.9
0.1
0
0
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
1.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
14.5
11.8
0.7
10.7
5.9
3.9
14.5
0.5
14.5
9.1
14.5
14.5
14.5
3.6
12.5
14.5
2.6
7.9
2.1
3.8
Totals
233.4
57.4
66.0
176.6
231.2
364.2
41.8.
Average
11.7
2.9
3.3
8.8
11.5
18.2
2.1
13.1
0.5
13.1
7.7
13.1
3.7
13.1
0
13.1
0
13.1
2.1
13.136.1
13.1
25.3
13.1
48.6
13.1
43.1
13.1
48.6
13.1
48.6
13.1
23.5
13.1
0
13.1
8.6
13.1
48.6
1.4
9.9
7.1
9.3
0
0
13.1
0
3.4
0.3
0
0
0.1
0.6
3.4
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
0
3.4
3.4
3.0
2.6
0.6
1.0
Rocky
Ford
Highline
Colorado
Canal
8.1
32.2
2.332.2
8.2
32.2
0.2
32.2
3.0
32.2
2.6
32.2
32.2
. 0.7
5.3
32.2
8.5
32.2
6.4
32.2
4.7
32.2
7.5
32.2
7.2
32.2
4.3
32.2
4.4
32.2
10.2
32.2
2.5
32.2
9.2
32.2
5.0
32.2
3.3
32.2
103.6
5.2
644.0
32.2 1/
Total
94.6
86.5
74.5
76.0
66.8
75.8
124.9
92.1
144.4
131.4
141.8
144.7
119.3
62.3
89.8
147.4
56.7
77.0
48.5
63.7
1918.2
95.9 2/
1/
This quantity represents demand assuming Colorado Canal is 100 percent agriculture.
of the shares remaining in agriculture, the demand is estimated to be 4,800 A.F.
2/
This total would be 68,500 A.F. if only that demand associated with 15 percent of the Colorado Canal
shares remaining in agriculture (4,800 A.F.) is included.
With 15 percent
ri)
0:
8
6*
(1,"
ruic''
"
E. 5'
gi. P
I
1.4*1<1
r
12-28-88
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Raymond D. Nixon
2519 Prairie Road
Colorado Springs CO 80909
Ralph Adkins
Post Office Box 1928
Pueblo CO 81002
Edward W. Bailey
Manager, Water Division
City of Colorado Springs
Post Office Box 1103
Colorado Springs CO 80901
Alan C. Hamel
Executive Director
Board of Water Works
of Pueblo
Post Office Box 400
Pueblo CO 81002
Frank Milenski
23064 Road BB
La Junta CO 81050
Lee W. Simpson
St. Charles Mesa Water
Association
1397 South Aspen
Pueblo CO 81007
Roger A. Weidelman
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 449
Loveland CO 80539
Russ Livimston
U.S. Geological Survey
Post Office Box 1524
Pueblo CO-81003
Steven J. Witte
Division Engineer
Water Division No. 2
Post Office Box 5728
Pueblo CO 81002-5728
Karen Lippert
Project Engineer
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Arkansas River Project Office
Post Office Box 294
Pueblo CO 81002
Charles L. Thomson
General Manager
Southeastern Colorado
Water Conservancy District
Post Office Box 440
Pueblo CO 81002
Raymond H. Willms Project Manager
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 449
Loveland CO 80539
Jack Garner
Chief, Pueblo Field Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 515
Pueblo CO 81002
•
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Review Committee
Meeting:
January 20, 1989, 10 a.m., District Office
Proposed Agenda:
A.
Estimated Supplemental Agricultural Demand for Winter Storage Program and
Project Water
B. Municipal Demand for Project Water
1. Present - 5,000 A.F.
C.
2.
Near Term - 21,000 A.F.
3.
Ultimate - 41,000 A.F.
Estimates of Storable Winter Water at Pueblo Reservoir
D. Scenarios of Simulated Project Operation
E.
Discussion
F.
Other
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
TAKEmimm
PRIDEINamomm
AMERICA ammummi
111•=1•11111111111111111111111=11111111
Great Plains Region
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
Ell
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. Box 449
Loveland, Colorado 80639-0449
FEI3
1989
Fryingpan Arkansas Project Review Committee Members:
Enclosed is some descriptive information about the additional project operation
scenarios that the Reclamation staff will discuss with you at the committee
meeting on February 22, 1989.
We have varied the municipal demand, municipal allocations - both percentages
and storage, assignment of dedicated storage for the winter water storage
program, and set-aside of 30,000 acre-feet of Pueblo Reservoir storage for the
potential storage of non-project water.
Ray and I look forward to meeting with you.
Sincerely,
Chief, Planning Division
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
Enclosure
Identical Letter to:
Mr. Ralph Adkins
PO Box 1928
Pueblo, CO 81002
Mr. Edward W. Bailey
Manager Water Division
City of Colorado Springs
PO Box 1103
Colorado Springs, CO 80901
Mr. Alan C. Hamel
Executive Director
Board of Water Works of Pueblo
PO Box 400
Pueblo, CO 81002
Mr. Rank Milenski
23064 Road BB
La Junta, CO 81050
Mr. Lee W. Simpson
St. Charles Mesa Water Association
1397 South Aspen
Pueblo, CO 81007
Mr. Russ Livingston
U.S. Geological Survey
PO Box 1524
Pueblo, CO 81003
Mr. Steven J. Witte
Division Engineer
Water Division No. 2
PO Box 5728
Pueblo, CO 81002-5728
Ms. Karen Lippert
Project Engineer
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Arkansas River Project Office
PO Box 294
Pueblo, CO 81002
Mr. Charles L. Thomson
General Manager
Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District
PO Box 440
Pueblo, CO 81002
Mr. Raymond D. Nixon
2519 Prairie Road
Colorado Springs, CO
80909
2/8/89
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW
Additional Scenarios of Project Operation
A.
1.
Revised Supplemental Agricultural Demand (with Colorado Canal at
15 percent).
2.
Revised Storable Winter Water Estimates (Bessemer, High Line,
Oxford-Farmers, Catlin, West Pueblo/Riverside).
3.
Municipal Demand - 41,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a.
b.
B.
5.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
6.
No dedicated Storage - Winter Water Storage Program (W.W.S.P.)
1.
Same as A.
2.
Same as A.
3.
Municipal Demand - 29,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a.
b.
C.
New water - 82%
Storage
- 159,000 A.F.
New Water - 52%
Storage
- 159,000 A.F.
5.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
6.
No Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
1.
Same as A.
2.
Same as A.
3.
Municipal Demand - 21,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a.
b.
New Water - 47%
Storage
- 81,500 A.F.
1
D.
5.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
6.
No Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
1.
Same as A.
2. Same as A.
3.
Municipal Demand - 21,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a.
b.
5.
New Water - 57%
Storage
- 81,500 A.F.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
6. 30,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
E.
1.
Same as A.
2. Same as A.
3.
Municipal Demand - 29,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a.
b.
5.
New Water - 57%
159,000 A.F.
Storage
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity.
6. 30,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
F.
1.
Same as A.
2.
Same as A.
3.
Municipal Demand - 5,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a. . New Water - 26%
b. Storage
- 81,500 A.F.
5.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
6. 30,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
7.
Set aside 30,000 acre-feet of storage at Pueblo Reservoir for storage
of non-project water.
2
G.
1.
Same as A.
2.
Same as A.
3.
Municipal Demand - 21,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a.
b.
5.
New Water - 56%
Storage
- 81,500
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity.
6. 30,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
H.
7.
Set aside 30,000 acre-feet of storage at Pueblo Reservoir for storage
of non-project water.
1.
Same as A.
2.
Same as A.
3.
Municipal Demand - 19,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a.
b.
5.
New Water - 51%
- 81,500 A.F.
Storage
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity.
6. 30,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
I.
7.
Set aside 30,000 acre-feet of storage at Pueblo Reservoir for storage
of non-project water.
1.
Same as A.
2.
Same as A.
3.
Municipal Demand - 29,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a.
b.
5.
New Water - 56%
Storage
- 159,000 A.F.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity.
6. 30,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
7.
Set aside 30,000 acre-feet of storage at Pueblo Reservoir for storage
of non-project water.
3
J.
1.
Same as A.
2.
Same as A.
3.
Municipal Demand - 27,000 A.F. per year.
4.
Municipal Allocation.
a.
b.
New Water - 51%
Storage
- 159,000 A.F.
5.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity.
6.
30,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
7. Set aside 30,000 acre-feet of storage at Pueblo Reservoir for storage
of non-project water.
4
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Great Plains Region
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
E-700
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. Box 449
Loveland, Colorado 80639-0449
icv
TAKE- iiiummi
PRIDE IN._______
AMERICA Emmumm
mmm........
mummummilimm
m
me
11,-90
Fry-Ark Project Review Committee Members:
The enclosures present information and data concerning 13
scenarios that have been developed since the last meeting of the
committee.
Parameters that have been varied between the different scenarios
are:
1.
Project municipal demand/delivery.
2.
Percentage for allocating project water to the
municipalities.
3.
Allocation of project storage capacity to the
municipalities.
4.
Dedicated storage for the winter water storage program in
Pueblo Reservoir.
5.
Set-aside storage in Pueblo Reservoir for future long-term
contracts for storage of non-project water.
Requirements for irrigation water are the same in each of the 13
scenarios and are based upon the information shared with the
committee in my letter dated December 29, 1988.
The levels of municipal deliveries are categorized as current
(5,000 A.F.), near-term (21,000 A.F.), and ultimate. The
ultimate deliveries vary as a result of the different municipal
allocation percentages, municipal allocation of project storage,
and the effects of including deducted and set-aside storage at
Pueblo Reservoir.
The average annual total project water supply based upon the
earlier Reclamation study using the period, 1928-1965, was
estimated to be 80,400 acre-feet. This was used in the
development of the "Allocation Principles, Findings,
Determinations, and Resolutions" in 1979.
The current studies, using the period, 1966-1985, indicate that
there may be less water available from the project. This is due
2
to there being native Arkansas River water available for project
storage under the 1939 water right in only one year (1985).
As a result, the ultimate municipal supply without shortages
using the current allocation parameters of 51 percent and 159,000
acre-feet becomes 28,000 acre-feet (see Scenario IV). The
average annual total project water supply in Scenario IV is
estimated to be 48,800 acre-feet (the sum of the project
municipal, 28,000 A.F., and irrigation, 20,800 A.F., water
deliveries).
Establishing dedicated storage for the Winter Water Storage
Program generally results in the following:
1.
Increase in the frequency and amount of imports foregone due
to having less project storage capacity available in certain
years to store divertible West Slope water available to the
project.
2.
Need to increase the percentage for allocation of project
water to the municipalities (compare Scenarios V and VI; IV,
VII, and VIII).
3.
Increase in the use of stored winter water by reducing
frequency and magnitude of spills.
4.
Reduction in the use of project water for irrigation.
The amount of dedicated storage for the winter storage program is
significant only in those years in which the conservation storage
capacity in Pueblo Reservoir is filled or nearly filled as a
result of storage of project water. As use of project water
increases by both irrigation and municipal entities, the
frequency and amount of vacant storage capacity of Pueblo
Reservoir will increase.
The average annual storable winter water in the current studies
is estimated to be 27,500 acre-feet for the direct flow entities.
The amount ranges from 14,100 (1978) to 43,700 (1985) acre-feet.
Spills of winter water are a result of the following:
1.
Need for capacity to store project water.
2.
Requirement to release unused winter water remaining from
the previous year on May 1.
3.
A combination of 1 and 2.
Each of the scenarios have one or more years in which winter
water was released/spilled pursuant to 2. The amount of
dedicated storage should have some relationship to the
3
anticipated need for supplemental irrigation water in a year when
the conservation storage capacity at Pueblo Reservoir is full or
nearly full.
The frequency of irrigation shortages is noted only to
demonstrate that there are limits to the magnitude of irrigation
and municipal water demands that the project may satisfy. The
table entitled, Irrigation Shortages, displays the years of
occurrence and estimated magnitude of the shortage. These
shortages are only those associated with the supplemental supply
expected to be available from the project. Therefore, since
water that is available to each irrigation entity would be
diverted pursuant its water rights, the lack of project water in
some years may be tolerable.
The studies emphasize the empirical basis of the parameters
reflected in the Allocation Principles. The extended study
period (1966-1985) suggests that there may be less water
available from the project on the average. Modification of the
Data Base for the 1928-1965 period may be desirable so that a
longer study period may be evaluated.
Establishing dedicated storage for the winter water storage
program would be of benefit to the participants. It may be more
important during the interim period as the use of project water
develops. Dedicated storage increases the potential for having
to forego West Slope imports and/or storage of native Arkansas
River water under the 1939 Water Right. As the use of project
water develops, greater amounts of vacant storage capacity at
Pueblo Reservoir will exist and the need to spill winter water
will occur less frequently.
Scenarios X and XI reflect the application of an allocation
percentage (67 percent) on both new and prior year unallocated
(old) project waters. Scenario X results in a project municipal
delivery of 41,000 acre-feet with an allocation percentage of 67
percent and a municipal storage allocation of 50,000 acre-feet.
Scenario XI results in a project municipal delivery of 55,000
acre-feet with an allocation percentage of 67 percent and a
municipal storage allocation of 159,000 acre-feet. Note that
both scenarios include 40,000 acre-feet of dedicated storage and
that as the municipal delivery is increased, the frequency and
magnitude of irrigation shortages increases.
The study has led to the identification of several items that the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District may want to give
further consideration. Dedicated storage for the Winter Water
Storage Program, amendment of the Allocation Principles, longterm contractual arrangements to permit exchanges of non-project
and project water, and storage of non-project water in project
facilities are several of these items.
4
Also enclosed is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday,
November 15, 1989.
Sincerely,
,
alaa
40
Roger A. Weidelman
Chief, Planning Division
Eastern Colorado Projects
Enclosures
11-6-89
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Raymond D. Nixon
2519 Prairie Road
Colorado Springs CO
80909
Ralph Adkins
Post Office Box 1928
Pueblo CO 81002
Edward W. Bailey
Manager, Water Division
City of Colorado Springs
Post Office Box 1103
Colorado Springs CO 80901
Alan C. Hamel
Executive Director
Board of Water Works
of Pueblo
Post Office Box 400
Pueblo CO 81002
Frank Milenski
23064 Road BB
La Junta CO 81050
Lee W. Simpson
St. Charles Mesa Water
Association
1397 South Aspen
Pueblo CO 81007
Roger A. Weidelman
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 449
Loveland CO 80539
Doug Cain
U.S. Geological Survey
Post Office Box 1524
Pueblo CO 81003
Steven J. Witte
Division Engineer
Water Division No. 2
Post Office Box 5728
Pueblo CO 81002-5728
Captain Thomas P. Thompson
Resident Engineer
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 294
Pueblo CO 81002
Charles L. Thomson
General Manager
Southeastern Colorado
Water Conservancy District
Post Office Box 440
Pueblo CO 81002
Steven R. Clark
Project Manager
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 449
Loveland CO 80539
Jack Garner
Chief, Pueblo Field Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 515
Pueblo CO 81002
Carl Genova
33032 South Road
Pueblo CO 81006
November 8, 1988
Fry-Ark Review
Additional Scenarios of Project Operation:
I.
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
III. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
IV.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
V.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Revised Supplemental Agricultural Demand
Revised Estimates of Storable Winter Water
Municipal Demand - 5,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
New Water - 26%
a.
Storage - - 81,500 A.F.
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
No Dedicated Storage - Winter Water Storage Program
W.W.S.P
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 5,000 A.F.
Municipal Allocation
New Water - 26%
a.
Storage - - 81,500 A.F.
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
40,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Allocation - 41,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
New Water - 83%
a.
b.
Storage - - 159,000 A.F.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
No Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 28,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
New Water - 51%
a.
Storage - - 159,000
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
No Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 21,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
New Water - 49%
a.
Storage - - 81,500 A.F.
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
No Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P
2
VI.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
VII. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
VIII 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
IX.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
X.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 21,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
a.
New Water - 56%
b.
Storage - - 81,500 A.F.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
40,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 28,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
New Water - 54%
a.
Storage - - 159,000 A.F.
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
40,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 28,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
New Water - 54%
a.
Storage - - 159,000 A.F.
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
30,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 33,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
New Water - 67 %
a.
Storage - - 159,000 A.F.
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Storage
40,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 41,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
Old and New Water - 67%
a.
Storage - - - - 50,000 A.F.
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
40,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
3
XI.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
XII. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
XIII 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 55,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
Old and New Water - 67%
a.
b.
Storage - - - - 159,000 A.F.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
40,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 28,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
a.
New Water - 53%
Storage - - 159,000 A.F.
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
40,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
30,000 A.F. Set-aside Storage
Same as I
Same as I
Municipal Demand - 27,000 A.F./year
Municipal Allocation
New Water - 51%
a.
Storage - - 159,000 A.F.
b.
Existing Pueblo Reservoir Capacity
40,000 A.F. Dedicated Storage - W.W.S.P.
30,000 A.F. Set-aside Storage
•
DRAFT
11/2/89
FRYINGPAN ARKANSAS PROJECT OPERATIONS SCENARIOS
Project Municipal
Delivery (A.F./Year)1/
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
28,000
28,000
33,000
41,000
55,000
28,000
27,000
54
54
67
67
67
53
51
031,500 159,000
81,500 r
,i
\,
159,000
159,000
50,000
159,000
159,000
159,000
VII
1
II
III
IV
5,000
5,000
41,000
28,000
21,000
21,000
51
(26) 83
___.--,'"'
81,500 159,000 159,000
49
56
V ,
VI
Aunicipal
Allocation
New Water (%)2/
Storage (A.F.)
.----.
r
(2E)
.,_,'
81,500
Dedicated Storage
W.W.S.P. (A.F.)
No
40,000
No
No
No
40,Oo
40,000
30,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
Set-Aside Storage
at Pueblo
(.30,000 A.F.)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Inports Foregone
(No. of Years)
(1,000 A.F.)
,
9
13.7
10
20.3
0
3
1.6
4
4.9
8
8.5
4
5.2
4
4.6
3
3.0
1
1.0
0
4
5.9
4
6.1
0
0
3
1 1
0
0
1
2
3
3
6
3
1
Spill of Winter Water
(No. of Years)
(1.000 A.F.)
10
10.5
4
2.1
8
6.0
8
8.7
10
9.8
6
4.2
6
4.7
7
5.2
7
5.9
8
7.1
6
4.7
6
4.6
Average Winter
Water Delivered
(1,000 A.F./Year)
16.3
24.1
19.4
17.7
16.7
21.7
21.1
21.0
20.4
19.3
17.9
21.0
21.1
Percent of Storable
Winter Water
Delivered(Z)
59
88
71
64
61
79
76
76
74
70
65
76
77
Average Project
Water Delivered
for Irrigation
(1,000 A.F./Year)
28.7
23.1
12.6
20.8
23.3
19.7
18.2
18.0
16.1
12.5
Irrigation Shortage
(No. of Years)
1/ No Municipal Shortages occur in these Scenarios.
7
5.2
3.3 .
17.1 .
17.5
Delivery Equals Demand.
2/ Scenarios X and X1 reflect the allocation of the prior year unallocated project water (old) and current year project water (new).
the other scenarios allocate the current year project water (new) only.
All the
4/3 Qt)
FT
11/2/89
FRYINGPAN ARKANSAS PROJECT
OPERATIONS SCENARIOS
IRRIGATION SHORTAGES 1/
I.
NONE
II.
NONE
III.
1977 (59.8), 1978 (31.5), 1982 (0.3)
IV.
1979 (1.0)
V.
NONE
VI.
NONE
VII.
1979 (1.0)
VIII.
1978 (3.5), 1979 (1.0)
IX.
1977 (27.8), 1978 (3.2) 1979 (0.7)
X.
1977 (62.6), 1978 (31.1), 1982 (0.1)
XI.
1974 (61.5), 1975 (38.2), 1976 (57.6), 1977 (59.0),
1978 (43.4), 1981 (41.4)
XII.
1977 (29.4), 1978 (3.5), 1979 (1.0)
XIII.
1977 (29.4)
1/
Years and shortgage in thousands of acre-feet.
November 7, 1989
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Meeting:
Wednesday, November 15, 1989, 10:00 A.M.
Southeastern Colorado District Offices
Proposed Agenda:
I.
Discussion of newly generated scenarios
II.
Overview of the review activity
A.
Water demands
B.
Water supply
C.
Pueblo Dam and Reservoir Enlargement
D.
Dedicated storage - Winter Water Storage Program
E.
Allocation Principles
III. Report Preparation
IV.
V.
What Next?
Adjournment
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
tualmmin
PRIDE IN
AMERICA stanammis
mumommammumm
immammummomm
montemagems
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 449
LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539-0449
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Review Committee Members:
Enclosed are tables and figures that I had hoped to use at the committee
meeting on April 20 and forgotten to bring. The data shown is generated by
the unmodified USBR model using the 1928-1965 (38 year) period. The
results of 3 scenarios are displayed. The scenarios are:
1. Run #31488; Municipal and Industrial (ME) demand for project water set
at 41,000 acre-feet per year; total valley irrigation requirement at Pueblo
averages 478,000 acre-feet per year.
2. Run #33088; M&I demand for project water reduced to zero; total valley
irrigation requirement reduced by 50 percent to an average of 239,000 acrefeet per year.
3. Run #33188; M&I demand for project water reduced to zero; total valley
irrigation requirement reduced by 75 percent to an average of 119,500 acrefeet per year.
The total valley irrigation requirement at Pueblo as used in the USBR model
is defined as the estimated unsatisfied demand remaining after use of water
historically available to the entities in the Basin between Pueblo and John
Martin Reservoir pursuant to their respective direct flow and off-stream
storage decrees. This requirement is supplied water by the model from
three sources; (1) non-project water from Busk -Ivanhoe, Inc., CF&I, and
Twin Lakes, (2) stored winter water, and (3) project water.
Table 1 displays summaries of the Pueblo Reservoir Operation for the three
scenarios. The line entitled Irrigation Deliveries represents the average
annual delivery of project water for irrigation. Also, note that the
Irrigation Shortage is reduced to zero with the total valley irrigation
requirement at 25 percent of the original estimate._
The mandatory releases in Table 1 represent the average annual release at
Pueblo Dam required to satisfy senior downstream direct flow and off-stream
storage as such rights were exercised historically during the 38-year study
period.
Table 2 displays summaries of the Winter Water Ownership and Project
Ownership. Note that the spill of winter water increases as the demand for
project water is reduced. This is primrily due to the fact that the winter
water is being stored in the joint-use pool which has to be evacuated by
April 15, prior to any demand.
2
Table 3 displays the estimates of the net project water delivered. These
quantities (77,109, 55,700, and 33,900 acre-feet) are comparable by definition to the 80,400 acre-feet that is displayed in the district's Allocation
Principles, Findings, Definitions, and Resolutions. The reduction in deliveries are solely a function of the reduction in the demand for project
water. The project import water and storable 1939 water are the same in
each scenario. The only change is in the demand which results in less
water delivered, greater spills, and higher reservoir contents.
The figures (8) display graphically the end-of-month contents of Pueblo
Reservoir for each of the above-described scenarios. The entire study
period, 1928-1965, is depicted on the series of eight figures. The reservoir storage depicted is that which is estimated to exist after 50 years of
sediment accumulation. The storage capacities currently and after 50 years
are shown below in acre-feet.
Current
Total
Flood Control
Joint Use
Conservation
Dead and Inactive
After 50 Years
357,700
305,300
(27,000)
(66,000)
(234,300)
(30,400)
(27,000)
(66,000)
(197,100)
(15,200)
The model simulated operation of Pueblo Reservoir resulted in the prereleasing (spilling) of winter water as follows:
Run #31488 - 6 years
Run #33088 - 23 years
Run #33188 - 35 years
Pueblo Reservoir storage reached the top of the joint-use pool (278,300
A.F.) at the end of March as follows:
Run #31488 - 2 years
Run #33088 - 6 years
Run #33188 - 19 years
The Reservoir storage reached the top of the conservation pool (212,300
A.F.) during the period April through October as follows:
Run #31488
6 years
Run #33088 - 23 years
Run #33188 - 35 years
This information has been developed and displayed principally to emphasize
the sensitivity of the operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project operation to the demand for project water, both irrigation and MM.
3
The numbers presented will change as the model is modified to reflect the
current conditions, i.e., physical plan, allocation principles, winter
water storage program, extended period of record (1966-1986), curtailment
of West Slope imports when such water is excess to the project's needs,
etc.
As the Bureau and USGS models are modified to more appropriately simulate,
the operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the demand for and use .
of water in the Arkansas River Basin, it is my hope that displays such as
those enclosed will be useful in future discussions.
Any suggestion, advice, and/or guidance would be sincerely appreciated.
there are any questions, please call me at (303)667-4410.
.
Sincerely yours,
aZ12-Zea-gt
Chief, Planning Division
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
Enclosures
If
4/19/88
FRY-ARK OPERATION STUDY - TABLE 1
#31488
MODIFIED
BASELINE
M&I = 41.0
#33088
IRRIGATION
@ 50%
ME = 0
628.3
627.5
626.9
STORABLE 1939 WATER
32.1
32.1
32.1
STORABLE WINTER WATER
80.3
80.3
80.3
MANDATORY RELEASES
384.4
384.4
384.4
TOTAL VALLEY IRRIGATION
REQUIREMENT @ PUEBLO
478.0
239.0
119.5
NON-PROJECT RELEASES
60.1
59.5
58.7
ME RELEASES
48.5
7.5
7.5
USEABLE ME RETURN FLOW
21.7
3.2
-4.1
REMAINING IRRIGATION
REQUIREMENT
396.2
176.3
64.9
WINTER WATER RELEASED
69.3
50.8
17.4
IRRIGATION DELIVERIES
36.1
55.7
33.9
276.3
47.6
0
8.2
11.4
13.9
20.1
53.8
106.6
(1000 A.F.)
#33188
IRRIGATION
@ 25%
ME = 0
PUEBLO RESERVOIR OPERATION
TOTAL INFLOW
IRRIGATION SHORTAGE
NET EVAPORATION
RESERVOIR SPILLS
38-YEAR AVERAGES: (1928 - 1965)
4/19/88
FRY-ARK OPERATION STUDY - TABLE 2
(1000 A.F.)
#31488
MODIFIED
BASELINE
MI = 41.0
#33088
IRRIGATION
@ 50%
M&I = 0
#33188
IRRIGATION
@ 25%
M&I = 0
WINTER WATER OWNERSHIP
STORABLE WINTER WATER
80.3
80.3
80.3
2.4
. 2.4
1.8
396.2
176.3
64.9
WINTER WATER RELEASED
69.3
50.8
17.4
WINTER WATER SPILLED
8.5
27.1
61.0
NET PROJECT IMPORTS
68.9
68.9
68.9
STORABLE 1939 WATER
32.1
32.1
32.1
NET PROJECT CREDITS
101.0
101.0
101.0
EVAPORATION CHARGE
6.5
10.6
14.4
TRANSPORTATION CHARGE
6.0
5.9
5.9
41.0
0
0
REMAINING IRRIGATION
REQUIREMENT
326.9
125.5
47.5
IRRIGATION DELIVERIES
36.1
55.7
33.9
SPILL OF WATER
10.8
25.4
43.4
EVAPORATION CHARGE
REQUIREMENT
PROJECT OWNERSHIP
MI DELIVERIES
38-YEAR AVERAGES: (1928 - 1965)
4/19/88
FRY-ARK OPERATION STUDY - TABLE 3
AVAILABLE PROJECT
WATER (1000 A.F.)
#31488
MODIFIED
BASELINE
MI = 41.0
#33188
IRRIGATION
@ 25%
MI = 0
PROJECT IMPORTS
68.9
68.9
68.9
TRANSPORTATION CHARGE
-6.0
-5.9
-5.9
+32.1
+32.1
+32.1
NET
95.0
95.1
95.1
SPILL OF PROJECT WATER
-10.8
-25.4
-43.4
NET
84.2
69.7
51.7
EVAPORATION CHARGE
-6.5
-10.6
-14.4
CHANGE IN PROJECT STORAGE
-0.6
-3.4
-3.4
NET PROJECT WATER DELIVERED
77.1
55.7
33.9
IRRIGATION
(36.1)
(55.7)
(33.9)
MI
(41.0)
(0)
(0)
STORABLE 1939 WATER
(38-YEAR AVERAGES:
i
#33088
IRRIGATION
@ 50%
MI = 0
1928 - 1965)
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
....1
270
1.97-1
•
/:
1
/:
I
.
/•
I
:
I
/:
I
/
:3
//:3
.1
/ •• 1
/
•
240
?,
i ••
1 :
210
'
••
.i
.‘
180
:
sI :
• %
-• %
•1 ... I :
.
.
I
'
150
i:
•
•
i '
•
, •
•N 4
.
1
'
•
.
.
'
• •
•
'
• •
• •
••
•••
/ i
i •••
\
.i
.
.. 1
*. %
•
.. :
. ,
.
•• .
.•
•.
.
i
.
120
A
ri
1%
1 1
/ •
i :-.1
/ • 3
•
/:
I ?
/
:
I•
•• .
• :
.
•
.
••• ;
•
•• ••
••
e
••
••
90
i
%.
:
I
1
• ••• %
i .
• - %
••\
/ ' ,
• \
I ••
.
•%
•
.. \
..
•.
• %
.
i :
i •
•• % ii :
•
• • i :
6
•
foo
•
•
•.
•
•
•
•
•
%
%
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
.
%
•.
• 1
• %
.
.
• t
••
• •
t
•
60
1
•
w
•
•
•
•
••
.
:
•
•8•••
•
•
30
•
•
0
1
1
1
1
1
1i1
1
/
1
1
1
/
Iff /11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
-1
1
1
1
1
1111111111111riiiiiill
ODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODFAJA
••••••'
WATER YEARS 1928 — 1932 BY MONTH
M8c1 = 41 FULL AGR •• M8c1 = 0 AG at 50 — • M8c1 = 0 AG at 25
(#31488)
(#33088)
(#33188)
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
OM i
270
I
I
1
I
i
I
1
240
1
.
I
1
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
0,
210
30
• \
•
•
•
.
/
1
1
I
1
1
90
60
•
•
i
/
•
.
•
'
•
:
:
:
:
•..
•
•
Is
•
.
•
i
i
1
5'
•- %. t
:
• • ‘
••
.
•
.
•
•
.
•
.
•
.
•
.
.
•
•
•
.
.
..
•
s
.
_
•
.
'
•
.. .
'
. •
N
••
..#4
I•
.••
••
1
..
•
1
•
1.°
1
••
1;
•
i:
1
'
_•
•
•
•
I
.
1.••
%
r
•
A"
%
'
..
%
•
•,-•.••••%.•I
•
i
•
•
.
.
•
I :
1
1
,
I .
• •-C•
:
• •
i
i •• •... .
••
.
\
l
•..
•
/
Ne
:
.
1 :
s
•
•
1
••
S.
•
•
.
/
/
r %... %
/
•
/
•
•
:
. %•
1
/ ..,- *. •
••-.• •
.
i .
150
I
‘
40e
180
120
I
I
%11k
/
i
I
•
•
.II
• •
I
1
-..
..%
•..••I
1 :
1
•
•
•
• 1
1 :
.
.
• I
1 .
•
•
. %
1 •
•4,j_
.
•..
V :
.
.
.
•
.
•
.
•
•
1
..
•..
•
.
•
.
•...
••
•
•
•
•
.
s.
•
.
•
.
.
•
.
.
•
.
•
•
.
•
..
•
•.
;
..
..:
•N
,‘
1
•\
• %
•
•1
.
.
'I:
•
•
.
• %
.
.
. 1
•
•
• •
.
.
.
•
.
•
.
s
.
•
•
.
•
.
..
.
•
•
T1lliIIII1111111111111IIIIII111111111111111111I1111I111111t1l
ODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODFAJA
WATER YEARS 1933 — 1937 BY MONTH
Mael = 41 FULL AGR • • Mad = 0 AG at 50 — • M&I — 0 AG at 25
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
/pa
411.1. 11
ri• i
270
4
1
I
/
I
:
•
i
••
1
I
I
240
I
%
i
I:
4
/%
limp %
ill
o
I
1
i
Ili
1
••
%
:
to
•
—
/
I
V
•
:
.
•
•
•
150
1
:
I
•
:
I
$
•
••
•
•
.
•
•
•
.
•
0.
/
•
120
.
.
•
.
•
•
.
•
.
•
60
•
i
i
I
111..••.
%
30
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
.
•
w
•
.
e
.•
•
•
•
•
%.
.
.
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
:
•
•
.
•
•
•
i
• .
•0
0.
‘...
•
•
.
.
•
.
•
/•
•
•
•
.
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
i
1
.
k , .
I
•
.
•
•
.
•
.
•
•
.
•
•
•
V
•
.
S.
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
%
.
.
.
•
•
I
•
.
I
Ii,
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
.
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
::
•
.
•
i
•
.
.
/
%
i
ft
•
•
•
1
•
•
%
i
•
•'
•
•
•
%
/
/
•
•
•
•
i
1
i ••
/.
•
•
•
0
•
:
•
•
i
•
. •
/
'
1
%
Olt alb i
i:
•
^lbw
i ‘
:
:
•
.
.•..
t
.
t
1
•
•
I
90
N
I
I
0
rT4
v
,
/
/
•
• i
•
•
g
••
. A
f
A,
180
I
I
:.I
A
210
u
1
••
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
.
• •
••
••
••
-
ii••
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
i
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
i
IIILIIIIIII
ODFAJ A 0 DFAJ A 0 DFAJ AODFAJ
WATER YEARS 1938 — 1942 BY MONTH
Macl = 41 FULL AGR • • KM = 0 AG at 50 — • Mad = 0
a f 1
AG at 25
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
...,
.,,,,,,,,,,
•
0
..
270
if
cc•
240 L
t•c .
210 IV
.
it
,1
I I
,
1
1 1
i :
• • A..
I
t
•
.
'N
..%
180
•
.
/ :
1 :
..
,N
;
l
,1
,
I
120
•
•
.• ,
a
.
. %
.. 1k
._
90
•
•
•
•
I1
I
I
,,„%
,1:
,
i:
,..
i;
•
:\
i••*
1,••
.
:
%I e ,
..•
. it
i :
.
*...•
..
•u 1:
•
1 .
•
. .
. .
I
._.
.
•.,
1
.
1
•%.
/:
•
: ‘I j
I ;
•• %
.
•
•
/
•
s
.•
'
.
•
••
.... 1 :
i
.
.
•
.
.
•
.
•
:
.;
••
.
.
•
s
.
.
•
.
.
•
•
•
.
•
• ••
:
•
•
150 ,
P.... II
"
il
I
II
I
1
I
‘
i1%
1
i.
•„L ....
i .
N
1
At%
•
•
.•
II.
•
i:
.
/ .
•
•t
•.%
/ s
.
I I
•
.
/
•
*
•
Ni
z
•
•
.
•
•
11
•
•
.
.
.
.
'
.
•
•
.
.
•
•
•
•
,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
60
••
_
.
.
/:
.
•
"
•
•
•..\
.. t
•
/:
.
• •
••
•
%
/:
•
.•:
.•
S
30
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIiIIII11111
ODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ A
WATER YEARS 1943 - 1947 BY MONTH
— Mad = 41 FULL AGR • • Mad = 0 AG at 50 - • Mad = 0 AG at 25
.
..
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
Mlle
270
210
180
I
/....
I •
r•
•
'
•
I
1
I
I
I
I:.1
I :•.1
I :
4
. .
..
.
I :
I:
.
••
•
.
.1
.
.
•
•
a
•
120
.
-
I '
:
1.
.
1
ii..
At
le
*.%
•, ,
1:
I:
•
•
•. .•
•. • :
• io .
•
.
4
1
I
NM 1
•
i:
I .
• 1I
I •
: I
:
I
I:
t
i •
1
,T
i I
I
1
1
i
150
90
0
.1 i
I
240
Pi
4
ell: 1
.•
•
14
I t
1
•A
;I,
-.,
„,
•
.4
•
•.:
‘/
•
.
.
•
.
.
.
.
.
•
. • ev.•• N _
. \
/:
..
I .
I
I
I
I
I
.,.1
•
...%
.
1
.
.
: ••
• 1
')
‘...
i
/
.
I .
•
•
•
/ •
. •
•
.
•
*.
\
... I:
•
.
.
.
•
.
.
•
•
•
•
, .
• •
. •
•
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
•
•
.
.
'
•
•
•
.
0
.
.
•
•
•
1.;
'
•
••
.
.
••
.
.
.
•
.
.
•
s
.
•• .
•
••
.
••
..
•
60
• •
•
'
.
.
•
0
.
1
.
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
•
•
•
30
V
0
111111111)111111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
ODFAJAODFAJAODFAJAODFAJA
DFAJA
WATER YEARS 1948 — 1952 BY MONTH
Mad — 41 FULL AGR • • Mad = 0 AG at 50 - • Mad = 0 AG at 25
1
t
•
ISUOMMIIII
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
EOM CONTENT IN TAF
•
ri
I
I
/
1
270
A
/1
240
210
.•
..
..
/
i
180
.
I
150
120
I
/
i
:
•
•
.
.
:
'
.
.
.
.
.
/
'..%
*.%
-.%
•%
•
••
..•• %
1
,
t
.••• t
• -/
..1
t
/
/
/ •
/ ..
•
•
• %
r ,
• t
.
i :
•
.
t i :
1
tt
•
.•
.
:
•
:
•
i
t
•
%. 1
•
•
S
/
%
/ . .
.. I
/
/ •
• • i.
i
•
• t
...•
I ..
•-. . 1
•• t
•
s
t
•
..", •
•• t
I
1
/
.
•
t
: •
t
—
_ ! \ tI :
1---,:• .- —
I
•
.
•
• i .•
,.. i
.
•
.
v ..•
.
.
•.
:
.
•
.
•
.
1
••
•
•
••
1
t
t
i
/
•
,—
/
/
••
•
•
•. ,•
. •.
..
/
t
—
•
•
•
.
•
.
%
• t
.. t
•
t
•
t
.
•
t
.
t
•
•
s
;
t
.
.•
•
.
s ;
i •
I •
•
.
.
iiiiiiirili. ,.....•
•
.
•
•
60
..t•
.•.• .•. • .••. ..•
.•
.•.. .• _
.•. . •,•
30
111.111,.
.......1.11,.................
ODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ A
90
iffilifilliiiiiil
WATER YEARS 1953 — 1957
M&I = 41 FULL AGR •
M&I = 0
AG at 50 - • M&I = 0
AG at 25
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUE LO
300
4
270
1 1
1
1 II
240
1
I
i
....
• .t
t
I
.
210
EOM CONTENT IN
r
180-
.
I.
I:
i
'
,•
•1
/
I
i
t
t:..:-.3)
.....-------- I
1
.
/
I
'.‘
I
:
.
I
.
.
/
t
1
I
I
1
••.l
.
.1
I
Ne
..
•
1
•
.
.
.
.
.
•
i
1
1
•
1
150
120-
•
9060
30
0
iili ii Iii ItTlilitli
ODFAJAODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ AODFAJ A
WATER YEARS 1958 — 1962 BY MONTH
M&I = 41 FULL AGR • • Mad = 0 AG at 50 — • M8c1 — 0 AG at 25
OWa
END OF MONTH CONTENT AT PUEBLO
300
EOM CONTENT IN TAF
270
..0411110.11013.1.1.0
.
0 0P
ftswisNiii.....a...mecrwswamsrmasArimiserammortubrdhaaigurriftwommirmemr.ww
,
--,,,,igicary
240
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
ON DJ F MA MJ J ASONDJ F MA MJ J ASONDJ F MA MJ J AS
WATER YEARS 1963 — 1965 BY MONTH
— MSc! = 41 FULL AGR • • MSc' = 0 AG at 50
M&I = 0 AG at 25
ME
TAIIIMMEMM
PRIDEN=
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Great Plains Region
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. Box 449
Loveland, Colorado 80639-0449
E-700
AMERICA
simimmommom
eimismimommi
wimammimmi
ENEME
1111
MAR 06 1990
Fry-Ark Project Review Committee Members:
Enclosed is a copy of the initial nine chapters of the draft report entitled
Fryincipan-Arkansas Project, Colorado, Report on Review of Operations. The
section on Findings and Chapters X and XI are still being developed.
Chapters I through VII are intended to present factual information. Chapter
VIII, Pueblo Dam and Reservoir Enlargement, is a brief summary of the
Appraisal Design Report which is included in its entirety as an appendix.
Chapter IX discusses the municipal and irrigation demand data utilized in the
various scenarios simulated by the model.
I would appreciate any suggestions that you may wish to offer.
at (303) 667-4410, ext. 223.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Weidelman
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
Please call be
11-6-89
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Raymond D. Nixon
2519 Prairie Road
Colorado Springs CO
80909
Ralph Adkins
Post Office Box 1928
Pueblo CO 81002
Edward W. Bailey
Manager, Water Division
City of Colorado Springs
Post Office Box 1103
Colorado Springs CO 80901
Alan C. Hamel
Executive Director
Board of Water Works
of Pueblo
Post Office Box 400
Pueblo CO 81002
4-rank Milenski
23064 Road BB
La Junta CO 81050
Lee W. Simpson
St. Charles Mesa Water
Association
1397 South Aspen
Pueblo CO 81007
Roger A. Weidelman
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 449
Loveland CO 80539
Doug Cain
U.S. Geological Survey
Post Office Box 1524
Pueblo CO 81003
Steven J. Witte
Division Engineer
Water Division No. 2
Post Office Box 5728
Pueblo CO 81002-5728
Captain Thomas P. Thompson
Resident Engineer
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 294
Pueblo CO 81002
Charles L. Thomson
General Manager
Southeastern Colorado
Water Conservancy District
Post Office Box 440
Pueblo CO 81002
Steven R. Clark
Project Manager
Eastern Colorado Projects Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 449
Loveland CO 80539
Jack Garner
Chief, Pueblo Field Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Post Office Box 515
Pueblo CO 81002
Carl Genova
33032 South Road
Pueblo CO 81006
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
TAKE mom .
1 11
PRIDE IN
=
11
AMERICA Emimmis
eimmommimmi
mmismoomma
imummummi
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 449
LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539-0449
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
=MI
Ell
JUN 07 1990
E-700
Fry-Ark Project Review Committee:
Enclosed for your information and review is the first draft of the remaining
sections of the proposed report entitled, Review of Operations, FrvingpanArkansas Project, Colorado. The enclosures include:
1.
Table of Contents (Revised)
2._ Findings
3.. Chapter VII, Flood Control
4.
Chapter XI, Operation Study Model
5.
Chapter XII, Operation Study Scenarios
Chapters I through VI and VIII through X were previously provided to the
committee members by my letter dated March 6, 1990.
I am going to be on vacation from June 13 through June 25 and will look
forward to any questions and comments that the committee members may have upon
my return to the office.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Weidelman
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
MI
•
United States Department of the Interior
TAKE
MN IN
AMERICA
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Great Plains Region
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
E-700
EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. Box 449
Loveland, Colorado 80639-0449
MAR 301990
Fry-Ark Project Review Committee:
This letter and the enclosed information was developed to provide additional
details concerning the potential for establishing dedicated storage in Pueblo
Reservoir for the Winter Water Storage Program.
We have defined dedicated storage to be a finite amount of storage within
Pueblo Reservoir, reserved for use by the Winter Water Storage Program
participants, that would not be subjected to releases to create storage
capacity for other project purposes. In the event that the amount of stored
winter water is less than the dedicated storage in any given year, storage of
other waters, as necessary, would be permitted in the remaining storage.
In my letter of November 8, 1989 the results of thirteen operational scenarios
were discussed and displayed. Enclosed is a table entitled, "FryingpanArkansas Project Operations Scenarios", dated November 2, 1989, that was
enclosed with the letter.
Scenarios I through VIII reflect various levels of municipal demand for
project water; have the same estimated irrigation demand; and have either no
dedicated storage or up to 40,000 acre-feet of dedicated storage for the
Winter Water Storage Program (Scenario VIII has 30,000 acre-feet).
The average annual storable winter water in the studies is estimated to be
27,500 acre-feet for the direct flow entities during the 20-year study period,
1966 through 1985. The amount ranges from 14,100 (1978) to 43,700 (1985)
acre-feet.
Spills of winter water are a result of the following:
1.
Need to evacuate the joint-use pool pursuant to the Pueblo Reservoir
flood control criteria.
2
Need to create space to store project water.
3.
Requirement to release unused winter water remaining from previous
year on May 1.
4.
A combination within a given year of 1, 2, and 3 above.
The table entitled, "Winter Water Spills", presents a summary of the number of
years in which spills occurred by scenario and the number of times a spill
occurred as a result of a particular cause.
2
The data indicates that a large number of the spills are a result of unused
winter water from the previous year remaining on May 1. Since the scenarios
reflect the use of a finite demand for supplemental irrigation water, there
are a number of years in which the amount of winter water available exceeds
the estimated demand. This is particularly true in those scenarios that have
dedicated storage. Obviously, the Winter Water Storage Program participants
have the best sense of their water needs, and I would expect that little, if
any, unused water would remain under real-time conditions that would become
subject to release on May 1.
Therefore, the establishment of dedicated storage would significantly reduce
the frequency that the need to evacuate the joint-use pool and/or create space
for storage of project water would cause a spill of winter water. This is
particularly true in those scenarios having the lower municipal demand (i.e.
I, II, V, and VI).
The adoption of an amount of dedicated storage is not without its
implications. The foremost of which is that the frequency of foregoing
diversion of available West Slope water increases. Any reduction in new water
available in a given year reduces the amount that may be allocated to
municipal and irrigation entities. However, this may not be a significant
factor until such time as the municipal demand for project water approaches
21,000 acre-feet (not expected until after the year 2000).
Another implication is that the irrigation entities participating in the
Winter Water Storage Program may use less project water on the average, since
the supply of winter water would be more reliable with the establishment of
dedicated storage. This would result in less revenues from the sale and use
of project water.
Since the frequency of spill of winter water tends to decrease as the demand
for and use of project water increases, the establishment of dedicated storage
for the Winter Water Storage Program may be something that is only needed for
an interim period, i.e., ten or fifteen years. Periodic reviews could be
required and provisions to modify the amount of dedicated storage following
such reviews could be defined. The review could coincide with existing review
at four year intervals of the payments for project water and/or winter water
storage.
As a result of the improved service provided by the project facilities to the
Winter Water Storage Program participants, a surcharge could be added to the
cost currently associated with the storage of winter water ($3.20 per acrefoot). This surcharge could be based upon generating the same total revenues
from the irrigation entities participating in the program with dedicated
storage as would have been expected to be generated without dedicated storage
over a period of time. The surcharge could be reviewed periodically and
adjusted as determined to be necessary. Surcharge revenues would be applied
to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project costs allocated to irrigation.
The table entitled, "Potential Winter Water Storage Program Surcharge",
presents an approach to developing a surcharge. Comparison of the quantities
of average project water delivered for irrigation under Scenarios I (28,700
3
acre-feet) and II (23,100 acre-feet) indicates that there is an average
reduction in the delivery of project water for irrigation of 5,600 acre-feet
per year. At $8.00 per acre-foot (current cost of project water) this amounts
to $44,800 per year less project water sale revenue. If it is assumed that
the average amount of winter water to be stored is 27,500 acre-feet per year,
a surcharge of $1.63 per acre-foot would generate approximately the same
amount of revenue on the average. This would result in a new total cost per
acre-foot of winter water stored of approximately $4.83 ($3.20 4- $1.63).
The information herein is presented to foster discussion among the Winter
Water Storage Program participants, the Fry-Ark Project Review Committee, and
the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Should the program
participants and the district wish to pursue the establishment of dedicated
storage for the Winter Water Storage Program, Reclamation stands ready to
cooperate.
Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. 5-07-70-W0086 addresses payment for storage of
winter water and reservoir spills. The establishment of dedicated storage
will necessitate the development and execution of a new amendment. Reclamation
will also have to meet its responsibilities for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act, as amended.
Steve and I look forward to meeting with the Fry-Ark Project Review Committee on
April 12, 1990. If there are any questions, please call either of us at (303)
667-4410.
Sincerely,
var.
Roger A. Weidelman
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
DRAFT
11/2/39
FRYIUGPAn ARKAUSAS PROJECT OPERATIOnS SMARMS
II
Project Municipal
Delivery (A.F./Year)1/
5,000
5,000
41,000
VIII
IX
28,000
33,000
VII
IV
V
VI
28,000
21,000
21,000
28,000
iunicipal
_Allocation
28,000
27,000
67
53
51
159,000
159,000
159,000
50,000
159,000
159,000
159,000
40,000
30,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
110
ho
flo
Yes
Yes
1
0
4
5.9
_ _
6.1
3
1
40,000
159,000
159,000
ho
40,000
tio
Ho
Ho
Set-Aside Storage
at Pueblo
J30,000 A,F,1_ _
Ho
Ho
ho
tlo
ho
Inports Foregone
(No. of Years)
(1,000 A.F.)
9
13.7 •
10
20.3
0
0
3
1
0
0
Dedicated Storage
W.W.S.P. (A.F.)
67
81,500 81,500
•______.
81,500
81,500
_
_
•
Irrigation Shortage
(No. of Years)
3
_1.6
4
4
Ho
••••••
8
8.5
_ _
4
5.2
. _
4
4.6
_ _
3
3.0
- -
1
2
3
3
6
7
5.2
7
5.9
8
7.1
6
4.7
6
4.6
_ _
_ 20.4
19.3
.17.9 _
21.0
21.!
76
77
17.1
17.5
10
10.5
4
2.1
8
6.0
8
8.7
10
9.8
6
4.2
6
4.7
_
Average Winter
Water Delivered
(1,000 A.F./Year)
16.3
24.1
19.4_
17.7
16.7
21.7
21.1
59
88
71
64
61
79
76
76
20.8
23.3
19.7
18.2_
18.0
.•
28.7
23.1
1.0
• •••
_
•
Spill of Winter Water
(No. of Years)
(1.000 A.F.)
Average Project
Water Delivered
for Irrigation
(1,000 A.F./Year)
55,000
67
54
51
Percent of Storable
Winter Water
Delivered(%) .
.
XIII
54
56
49
83
26
Storage (A.F.)
XII
•
26
flew Water (%)2/
41,000
XI
7
5.2
_
74
_.
65
70
•
12.6
1/ no Municipal Shortages occur in these Scenarios.
16.1
12.5
_
3.3 .
Delivery Equals Demand.
ted project water (old) and current year project water (new).
2/ Scenarios X and X1 reflect the allocation of the prior year unalloca
only.
(new)
water
project
year
current
the
allocate
s
scenario
- the other
All the
3/30/90
FRYINGPAN ARKANSAS PROJECT
OPERATIONS SCENARIOS
Winter Water Spills
Number of Years by Cause of Spill
(Spills may be Triggered in Any Given Year
by More Than One Cause)
_.
Scenario
(Municipal Delivery)
Number of
Years of Winter
Water Spills
(Study Period,
1966-1985)
.
Evacuation
of Joint
Use Pool
Create Storage
for
Project Water
Release of
Prior Year
Unused Water
I (5,000 A.F.)
10
5
9
1
II (5,000 A.F.)
4
0
1 1/
4
V (21,000 A.F.)
10
1
8
4
VI (21,000 A.F.)
6
0
1 1/
6
IV (28,000 A.F.)
8
1
5
4
VII (28,000 A.F.)
6
0
1 1/
6
VIII (28,000 A.F.)
7
0
3 .2/
6
III (41,000 A.F.)
8
0
3
6
.
,
,
Scenarios I, III, IV, and V do not have any dedicated storage for the winter water storage program.
Scenario VIII has 30,000 A.F. of dedicated storage.
1/ Amount of winter water in storage exceeded 40,000 acre-feet. Spill of
winter water due to the amount stored being greater than 40,000 acre-feet.
2/ Amount of winter water in storage exceeded 30,000 acre-feet. Spill of
winter water due to the amount stored being greater than 30,000 acre-feet.
—
3/30/90
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT
Potential Winter Water Storage
Program Surcharge
Scenario I
Scenario II
Average Annual Project Water Delivered
for Irrigation (A.F.)
28,700
23,100
Cost of Project Water @ $8.00 per A.F.
$229,600
$184,800
27,500
27,500
$88,000
$88,000
$317,600
$272,800
Average Annual Amount of Winter Water
Stored (A.F.)
Cost of Winter Water Stored @ $3.20
per A.F.
Total Annual Revenue
Difference in Annual Revenue
$44,800
Surcharge for Winter Water Stored per
acre-foot (44,800/27,500).
$1.63
Current cost of storage of Winter Water
per acre-foot.
$3.20
Total Cost of storage of Winter Water
per acre-foot with dedicated storage.
$4.83
_
D
Revised March 1, 1990
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT
COLORADO
REPORT ON REVIEW OF OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
PREPARED IN COOPERATION
WITH THE
SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO
WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
MARCH 1990
a
Revised March 1, 1990
CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
Location Map
Findings
I.
IV.
Introduction
-
1
Description of Project
-
3
Operating Principles-
-
7
Allocation Principles and Water
Allocation Policy-
-
-
-
12
V.
Winter Water Storage Program
-
-
-
-
17
VI.
Long-Term Contracts -
am
..
•••
-
23
VII.
Order of Spill -
...
...
_
28
VIII.
Pueblo Dam and Reservoir Enlargement
-
-
31
IX.
Project Water Demand-
-
-
-
-
-
33
_
_
_
_
_
_
33
Municipal -
-
4.9
Agricultural
X.
Operation Study Model
XI.
Operation Study Scenarios
Appendix A - Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Water Allocation Policy (amended August 1988)
Appendix B - Appraisal Design Report - Pueblo Dam Enlargement,
June 1988
EXPLANATION
1.11111.1 OI ULU...ATOM.
COSOPLZYLD ARO ADTDjtD ...RS
,.
--.
•....,..„,„ .,puoi.
SOOT).I A LTI. COLORADO
O
*CR
CORSIA
.N RCI MIMIC?
-..-4-X
".....r.7.
••.,..
- "I.
..
7.. 1
l
riamontes art rum& mar.
Aftron:vr i
17......111:
,Li
,
repfr,j v
1<
-.igi
zz
l
. AvRAKi4;11
ETSAS;te
-----77.1:7:73--17
,
'
1 :gt`R°ESPEARrWOret-•
7
.
CONDUIT
!.......'""""."'
.4
-1
.
.9....•.;_
.s"?`
"
4
-"...414.:
as-'....1-,.
...
, 't/
1 . *....;
:--
(
3.: I,
._4.1
•
• i Lamar
I
,i,/ "Af.
tA.
#'
t
:
t6
NSA;
VALLEY1
CaNDUir
7.
FS
...., ,,
'
,
I
"
,̀
...s
...---.
,1
3 7..ar.:.
.
il
.' ..•..
'4
/
•
- ••••.... cl
.
?‘
• fr.; i. , C
ls.'1"../ I
i
• •
1%315,1,1.2w:
.
/
...
..1 •
:)
../
'
1..
\`
IN
-- ..
• , c 0% -.
- - :_-_-_, _ - :.- k •••
........
:!1,,...‘...... MI:111W FO.RUAY- 1:•:-.;•.
:4,1-.4
••
: .....-_-:....dti
mr.rtitur PCMPLD- !alt....v..
-•
.4'..
,
..::.1:::.....
1 'i
i.
STMAGS POWLULANT
'A'
......--,.
'
)
;i
....,-
LI,
I
I
1-"'
/
/
:,,
..r.f., --...,
Alt:
.
il
10
:,-:....,:. .
t
,- ,.....,
l
-:,
'''
COLORADO
1
9
....i.....q
'...'.,,,
."'".„, rwitcArciat anti
--
LOWER MISSOURI REGION
SATIN
cam...icy ',writer
---",
%555••
...._..
•
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FRYINGPAN - ARKANSAS
...:.',.., ..:„....4,- ... ...,...,..4:
al%
__ 1____,..
I
,
BUDELU OF DECLALATION
- .-
Sc
WESTERN AND UPPER '
EASTERN SLOPE AREAS
,
.7
.
._
..,, ,
•„.: ••":.-,,
-J
.
7. 3
ri
ii
MAP NUMBER 3112- TOG - 2114$
PROJECT
CHAPTER I
Introduction
On February 4, 1988 Reclamation entered into a memorandum of Understanding
with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District for a study of the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project operations. The objective of the study was to
review and evaluate the operating criteria for the project to determine what
changes, if any, might be implemented to benefit the district and Reclamation.
The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was authorized for construction, operation, and
maintenance by Public Law 87-590, approved August 16, 1962.
Public Law 87-
590 was amended by Public Law 93-493, Sections 1101 and 1102, approved
October 27, 1974, and Public Law 95-586, Sections 901, 902, and 903, approved
November 3, 1978.
The district and Reclamation executed a water service
contract on January 21, 1965 for repayment of appropriate costs.
The contract
has been amended five times, most recently on February 26, 1988.
Project water was declared available pursuant to the contract on January 1,
1982.
The planning studies supporting the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project authorization
and subsequent contract, as amended, were conducted during the 1940's 1950's,
1960's and 1970's.
These studies indicated that there existed a significant
shortage of water for irrigation in virtually every year.
However, the use of
project water for irrigation has not approached the levels anticipated in the
planning studies.
1
D
In addition the district has allocated.a portion of the project water supply
to municipal and domestic entities within the district.
None of these
entities are presently using their full entitlements.
This less-than-expected use of project water and a series of years during the
mid-1980's of above normal runoff in the Arkansas River Basin in Colorado
resulted in the project not yielding the water supply or providing the winter
water storage program benefits anticipated.
The district established the Fry-Ark Project Review Committee to coordinate
the study with Reclamation.
Members of the committee represented the
District, cities of Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Fountain Valley Authority,
Arkansas Valley Ditch Association, Colorado Division of Water Resources,
Geological Survey, Corps of Engineers, and Reclamation.
The committee met periodically to discuss study progress and results, and to
offer suggestions on items to be considered and evaluated.
This report summarizes the study activities.
2
DRAFT
CHAPTER II
Description of Project
There are two distinct areas of the project.
The Western Slope, located in
the Hunter Creek and Fryingpan River Watersheds and the Eastern Slope in the
Arkansas River Valley of Colorado. The project consists of diversion,
conveyance, and storage facilities designed primarily to divert water from the
Western Slope to the water-short areas of the Eastern Slope.
There are five dams and reservoirs in the project:
Ruedi Dam and Reservoir is
located on the Fryingpan River upstream of Basalt, Colorado, three dams and
reservoirs in the Upper Arkansas River Basin in the greater Leadville area are
Sugar Loaf Dam and Turquoise Lake, Mt. Elbert Forebay Dam and Reservoir, and
Twin Lakes Dam and Reservoir. The largest of the project storage units,
Pueblo Dam and Reservoir, is on the Arkansas River upstream of Pueblo,
Colorado.
Reservoir storage allocation data follows:
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
Reservoir Storage Allocation Data
Unit: Acre-Feet
Reservoir
Ruedi
Tourquise
Pueblo
Twin Lakes
Mt. Elbert
Forebay
1/
Inactive
Active
Conservation
63
2,810
3,723
54,548
1,032
6,110
26,623
17,958
101,278
120,478
234,347
67,833
561
3,264
7,318
Dead
New area-capacity tables (1984)
3
Joint
Use
Flood
Control
0
0
65,952
0.
0
0
27,024
0
Total
Capacity
Storage
102,373 1/
129,398 1/
357,678
140,339
11,143 1/
••••••••.•••••I
"104. Oft
•
Sixteen diversion structures on the Western Slope are used to divert water
into the project collection system. The project includes nine tunnels with a
combined length of approximately 27 Miles.
The Western Slope
Ruedi Dam and Reservoir provide storage for replacement and conservation of
water for the Western Slope users. This water is used for irrigation,
municipal, industrial, recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes.
The North and South Collection Systems on the Western Slope collect the high
mountain runoff and convey the diverted waters to the inlet portal of the
Charles H. Boustead Tunnel. This tunnel conveys all the water from the North
and South Collection Systems under the Continental Divide to Turquoise Lake.
The Eastern Slope
Turquoise Lake and Sugar Loaf Dam are located on Lake Fork approximately five
miles west of Leadville.
The Mt. Elbert Conduit, a 10.7 mile, 90-inch diameter pipe, conveys water from
Turquoise Lake to Mt. Elbert Forebay. The Halfmoon Diversion Dam diverts
available flows of Halfmoon Creek into the Mt. Elbert Conduit.
Water
delivered to the forebay is used to generate power at the Mt. Elbert PumpedStorage Powerplant.
4
The powerplant is located approximately 13 miles southwest of Leadville at the
northwest corner of the lower lake of Twin Lakes.
The powerplant has two
pump-generator units, each with a nameplate capacity of 100 MW.
From Twin Lakes, project water is released to Lake Creek and the Arkansas
River for delivery to project water users upstream of Pueblo Dam and Reservoir
or storage in Pueblo Reservoir.
The distance from the confluence of Lake
Creek and the Arkansas River to Pueblo Dam is approximately 143 river miles.
Project water is released from Pueblo Reservoir to the Arkansas River for
irrigation and municipal use, to the Fountain Valley Conduit for municipal use
by the members of the Fountain Valley Authority, city of Colorado Springs,
city of Fountain, Security Water District, Stratmoor Hills Water District, and
Widefield Homes Water Company, and the Bessemer Ditch for irrigation use.
Construction of all of the water supply-related features that were expected to
be developed as part of the original project is completed.
There exists a potential to expand the North Side Collection System to Last
Chance and Lime Creeks, tributaries of the Fryingpan River.
However, the
plans to pursue this expansion have been deferred indefinitely.
Also, plans to construct the Arkansas Valley Conduit to serve towns and cities
east of Pueblo have not reached fruition and have been deferred indefinitely.
5
Several entities through long-term contracts with Reclamation utilize features
of the project for storage and/or conveyance of non -project water. These
entities are Aurora, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, High Line Canal Company, Twin
Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company, and Pueblo West Metropolitan District.
Reclamation has also executed temporary contracts with various entities to
utilize project features for storage and exchange. The number of these
contracts varies from year to year.
6
API
AFT
CHAPTER III
Operating Principles
Operating Principles were adopted by the State of Colorado as amended on
December 9, 1960.
The contracting parties are the Colorado Water Conservation
Board, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado River Water
Conservation District, and Southwestern Water Conservation District.
A commission was created, composed of one representative from each district,
two representatives of the United States, and one representative of the State
of Colorado appointed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board after
consultation with the Colorado Wildlife Commission (formerly Game and Fish
Commission). The powers of the commission are limited to the collection of
data, the making of findings of fact, and the suggestion of changes in the
principles.
The East Slope operations of the Project are directly influenced by the
following provisions of the principles:
"9.
(1) that the demand on the waters available under such decrees
shall be allocated in the following sequence:
(a) For diversion to the Arkansas Valley through the
collection system and the facilities of the Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project in an amount not exceeding an aggregate of 120,000
acre-feet of water in any year, but not to exceed a total
aggregate of 2,352,800 acre-feet in any period of 34
7
consecutive years reckoned in continuing progressive series
starting with,the first full year of diversions, both
limitations herein being exclusive of Roaring Fork exchanges as
provided in (c) below, and exclusive of diversions for the
Busk-Ivanhoe decree, and with the further and absolute
limitation that in order to protect existing and future
beneficial uses of water in Western Colorado, including
recreational and fishing values, the State engineer shall so
regulate the transmountain diversions above referred to, to the
end that no diversions shall be made which will reduce the
remaining aggregate streamflows to less than either of the
following minimum standards:
(i) The Fryingpan collection system at the points of
diversion collectively, exclusive of Lime Creek:
15 c.f.s. October 1 through March 31, 30 c.f.s. April
1 through September 30.
(ii) Near Norrie (immediately below the junction of North
Fork and Fryingpan River): 30 c.f.s. October 1
through March 31, 100 c.f.s. April 1 through
April 30, 150 c.f.s. May 1 through May 31, 200 c.f.s.
June 1 through June 30, 100 c.f.s. July 1 through
July 31, 75 c.f.s. August 1 through August 31, 65
c.f.s. September 1 through September 30.
In maintaining the above minimum standards, the project
diversions shall be regulated, so far as is practicable, in
8
DRAFT
such a manner that the North Fork of the Fryingpan River, the
Fryingpan River, and each of the tributaries of those streams,
shall contribute to the residual streamflows required by those
minimum standards quantities of water in proportion to their
natural contributions.
(c) For 3,000 acre-feet annually, to the extent that it is
available in excess of (a) and (b) above, or such part
thereof as may be required, to be delivered to the Twin
Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. in exchange for equivalent
releases from the headwaters of the Roaring Fork River
which would otherwise be diverted through such Twin Lakes
Reservoir & Canal Co. collection and diversion system.
13. The project will be operated in such a manner that those in eastern
Colorado using project water imported from the Colorado River Basin
for domestic purposes shall have preference over those claiming or
using water for any other purpose.
14.
The project is to be operated in such a manner as to secure the
greatest benefit from the use and reuse of imported project waters
within the project boundaries in the State of Colorado.
18.
No transmountain diversion of water shall ever be made through the
collection and diversion system of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in
excess of the quantitative limitations and conditions established by
9
this document:
Provided, however, That when under the laws of the
State of Colorado, there may be additional water available for such
collection and diversion which is not at the time of diversion
required for beneficial use in western Colorado or for filling
interstate water compact agreements, then such water may be
collected and diverted for beneficial use in the Arkansas Valley:
Provided further, That such additional diversion shall only be made
with the mutual consent of each of the following agencies of the
State of Colorado, to wit: the Colorado Water Conservation Board,
the Southwestern Water Conservation District, the Colorado River
Water Conservancy District, and the Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District."
Additional diversion criteria for the Hunter Creek Watershed was
established with the approval of Public Law 95-586.
Section 903
states "Subsection (a) of section 3 of such act is amended by
inserting after the word 'Congress' a semicolon and the words 'and
shall be further operated pursuant to diversion rates established
under the laws of the State of Colorado: PROVIDED, That the rate of
project diversions from the Hunter Creek watershed shall not exceed
an aggregate of 270 cubic feet of water per second of time.
Waters
so diverted may be utilized for all authorized project purposes as
set forth in section 1(a) of this Act.
Such waters, exclusive of
the amount diverted for Roaring Fort exchange provided for in
subparagraph 9(1)(c) and paragraph 11 of the above -referenced
operating principles shall become part of the project water supply
10
as limited by subparagraph 9(1)(a) of the above-referenced operating
principles.
No diversions shall be made from the Hunter Creek
Watershed which will reduce the remaining streamflows at the point
of diversion to less than 4 cubic feet per second on No Name Creek,
5 cubic feet per second on Midway Creek, and 12 cubic feet per
second on Hunter Creek."
11
DRAFT
CHAPTER IV
Allocation Principles and Water
Allocation Policy
On November 29, 1979, the members of the Board of Directors for the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District unanimously approved the
"Allocation Principles, Findings, Determinations, and Resolutions."
The document laid out the principles for the allocation of project water
available to the district between the municipal and agricultural water users
and the use of project storage by the municipal water users.
It was necessary to incorporate an estimate of the total project water supply
available for allocation.
The estimate, derived from Reclamation's Computer
Operation Study No. 40051, is 80,400 acre-feet after allowance for transit and
evaporation losses. This quantity represents the annual average using data
encompassing the 38-year period, 1928-1965, in the operation study.
The resulting allocation of project water and storage to the municipal and
domestic water entities is as follows:
A.
There is hereby allocated for the useful life of the Project a
minimum of 51% of the annual Project water supply to municipal and
domestic use.
12
DRAFT
B.
The minimum 51% allocated to municipal and domestic use is hereby
divided as follows:
1.
Fountain Valley Pipeline:
No less than 25% of the annual
Project water supply, estimated to be an average of 20,100
acre-feet;
2.
Arkansas Valley cities, towns and entities lying east of
Pueblo:
No less than 12% of the annual Project water supply,
estimated to be an average annual of 9,643 acre-feet;
3.
Pueblo:
No less than 10% of the annual Project water supply,
estimated to be an average of 8,040 acre-feet;
4.
Arkansas Valley cities; towns, and entities lying west of
Pueblo:
No less than 4% of the annual Project water supply,
estimated to be an average annual of 3,200 acre-feet.
C.
In making these allocations, the Board acknowledges that it is
unlikely that any entity receiving municipal and domestic water will
require its minimum allocation for a number of years; their demand
will gradually increase, and in the interim each of such municipal
and domestic water users shall annually, on or before April 1 of
each year, advise the Board of its anticipated demand; if such full
demand is not asserted for many years, such will not constitute an
abandonment of this allocation and such undemanded water may, during
13
...
i.,
such time be allocated first to municipal and domestic users by the
Board consistent with Paragraph 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and B.4 hereof.
Entities named in any one of said paragraphs shall have the first
option to purchase such unused portion allocated in that year.
If
not so purchased allocated water remaining unsold may thereafter be
offered to any other user on such basis as the Board of Directors
may then determine. There shall be no credit for water not
demanded.
D.
Said allocations are premised upon the utilization of carryover
storage space in Project reservoirs, in an amount not less than a
total of 159,000 acre-feet capacity of which the Fountain Valley
Pipeline may use not less than 78,000 acre-feet; Arkansas Valley
cities, towns, and entities lying east of Pueblo, not less than
37,400 acre-feet; Pueblo, not less than 31,200 acre-feet; Arkansas
Valley cities, towns and entities lying west of Pueblo, not less
than 12,400 acre-feet.
E.
Carryover storage space for all municipal and domestic purposes
shall not be less than 159,000 acre-feet in any one year.
This
storage limitation may periodically be revised by the Board of
Directors of the District; provided that any revision shall never
reduce municipal and domestic carryover storage space to less than
the amount as then determined by the Bureau of Reclamation required
for annual delivery of the allotted volumes of water to which
municipal and domestic users are entitled by reason of this
resolution.
Carryover storage for municipal and domestic purposes
14
shall be subject to appropriate evaporation and transportation
charges and water stored in carryover space shall not be subject to
reallocation.
F.
Irrigation waters will, subject to the pleasure of the Board of
Directors of the District, be allocated on an annual basis of need.
G.
This allocation of water for municipal and domestic purposes is made
on the express condition that there will not be any decrease in the
51% allocated to municipal and domestic use and any increase in
municipal and domestic allocations shall only occur if agricultural
irrigated acreage, on which Project water has been used, is removed
from irrigation in which event the amount of Project water
previously allocated to such acreage shall be allocated to other
non-irrigation uses. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy
District Board shall consider the requests of all non-agricultural
users in any reallocation of this supply. That no entity shall be
prevented from requesting annual adjustment in its allocation of
water from the Project within the parameters referred to in
Introductory Paragraphs 3 and 4.
H.
Allocation at 51% of Project water to municipal and domestic use at
this time represents a fair division of water, taking into account
the social and economic value of agriculture.
However, it is
recognized that the Fryingpan-Arkansas project is intended to
provide a supplemental, not a primary, supply of irrigation water.
15
Therefore, as irrigation water which is a primary source of water is
converted to a nonagricultural use, the amount of Project water
allocated to irrigation should be proportionately reduced and
allocated to non-agricultural use.
I.
These Principles will be implemented by appropriate contracts
between the District and the entities under said facility desiring
Project waters.
J.
Catastrophes, public emergencies, force majeure events
unforeseeable, shall be dealt with as an exception to these
Principles of Allocation as long as such emergency need exists, and
the District and all contracting entities will pledge themselves to
mutually cooperate in resolving such a crisis if and when it occurs.
K.
These Principles and any contract to implement the same shall be
confirmed by final judgment in a declaratory judgment proceeding to
be initiated by the District as promptly as possible.
The district also promulgated a "Water Allocation Policy", last amended
August 18, 1988.
A copy is presented in Appendix
Reclamation in cooperation with the district and the Division Engineer,
Division 2, has created and maintains an extensive means of accounting for
project water and storage use by the various municipal, domestic, and
agricultural entities.
16
CHAPTER V
Winter Water Storage Program
During the early stages of the planning for the project, individuals and
entities envisioned what has become known as the Winter Water Storage Program.
Prior to the construction of Pueblo Dam, the various irrigation entities would
divert the flow of the Arkansas River when in priority outside of the normal
irrigation season to maintain soil moisture levels in the fields where crops
would be grown during the following season.
Problems associated with winter
operation of canal and lateral systems, labor, and related items were
frequently experienced.
As a result the concept of a Winter Water Storage Program evolved with the
objective of storing waters that otherwise would have been diverted to the
fields in Pueblo Reservoir or the reservoirs of those entities whose
diversions to storage were located upstream of John Martin Reservoir. These
stored waters would than be released during the following irrigation season.
Following the closure of Pueblo Dam in 1974 the district, with the cooperation
of various entities in the Basin, promoted and operated winter water storage
programs each year from 1975-76 through 1986-87, except in 1977-78.
With the
experience and data gained each year, refinements and adjustments were made to
the program with the goal of arriving at an equitable means of apportioning
the stored water amongst the program participants and avoiding injury to nonparticipants.
17
DRAFT
Following intensive negotiations, an interlocutory decree, approved as to form
by all the applicants and entered by consent, was approved by the Water Court
Judge for Water Division No. 2 on November 10, 1987. The applicants were:
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Amity Mutual Irrigation Company
Bessemer Irrigating Ditch Company
Catlin Canal Company
The Colorado Canal Company
The Fort Lyon Canal Company
The High Line Canal Company
The Holbrook Mutual Irrigating Company
Lake Henry Reservoir Company
Lake Meredith Reservoir Company
Las Animas Consolidated Canal Company
Oxford Farmers Ditch Company
Riverside Dairy Ditch, and
West Pueblo Ditch
This Decree shall be interlocutory until November 10, 1990, at which time it
shall become final, without additional notice or hearing, by order of the
court making this decree final, unless on or before August 1, 1990, an
applicant(s) above-named requests changes in the Decree.
If changes are
requested, the Decree shall continue as interlocutory until further action of
the court.
18
The Winter Water Storage Program is operated under the direction of a Board of
Trustees, composed of one member of each applicant (except that Colorado,
Canal, Lake Henry, and Lake Meredith together have one vote).
River flows in
excess of the amount necessary to supply senior priorities not participating
in program may be stored in Pueblo Reservoir, John Martin Reservoir, or offstream storage facilities of applicants, from November 15 to March 15.
The Division Engineer keeps a record of all water stored or diverted. Such
water is apportioned on the basis of the following tables (excerpts from
Decree):
A.
The first 100,000 acre-feet of winter-stored water stored by
participating applicants may be stored in amounts according to the
following percentages, with 71.2% to applicants which own their own
off-channel storage rights and 28.8% to applicants which own direct
flow rights.
Division of Participating
Direct Flow Applicants'
28.8 Share of First 100,000 Acre-Feet
Bessemer
High Line
Oxford
Catlin
Consolidated
Riverside-West
Pueblo
Division of First 100,000
Acre-Feet
6,190
8,310
2,000
9,140
_2,760
21.50%
28.87
6.96
31.72
9.57
400
1.38
28,800 A.F.
100.00%
19
DRAFT
Division of Participating
Off-Channel Applicants'
Division of First 100,000
71.2% Share of First 100,000 Acre-Feet
Acre-Feet
Colorado, Lake Henry
Lake Meredith
15.01
Holbrook
11.97
Fort Lyon
53.60
Amity
19.42
10,690
8,520
38,160
13.830
71,200 A.F.
100.00%
B.
The next 2,750 acre-feet of winter stored water above 100,000 acrefeet may be stored by Amity, in the Great Plains System or John
Martin Reservoir.
..
Further, the next 356 acre-feet of winter stored
water above 102,750 acre-feet may be stored by the Holbrook, to its
account.
C.
A quantity of water will be delivered to Colorado Canal, Lake Henry
and Lake Meredith as described in a Stipulation among Applicants and
the city of Colorado Springs and others.
D.
Amounts of winter-stored water above 103,106 acre-feet may be stored
in amounts according to the following percentages, with 75% to
applicants with their own off-channel storage decrees and 25% to
applicants holding direct flow decrees.
20
Division of Participating
Direct Flow Applicants' 25%
Share of Water Over 103,106 Acre-Feet
Bessemer
High Line
Oxford
Catlin
Consolidated
Riverside-West Pueblo
Division of
Water Over
103,106 Acre-Feet
21.50%
28.87
6.96
31.72
9.57
1.38
5.3750%
7.2175
1.7400
7.9300
2.3925
0.3450
100.00%
25.0000%
Division of Participating
Off-Channel Applicants' 75%
Share of Water Over 103,106 Acre-Feet
Colorado, Lake Henry,
and Lake Meredith
Holbrook
Fort Lyon
Amity
17.07%
14.05
50.88
18.00
12.8025%
10.5375
38.1600
13.5000
100.00%
75.0000%
The program has been operated pursuant to the interlocutory decree since
1987-88.
The quantities of water stored by the participating entities during
the three years is as follows:
Participant
Bessemer
High Line
Oxford
Catlin
Consolidated
Riverside-West
Pueblo
Colorado, Lake
Henry and Lake
Meredith
Holbrook
Ft. Lupton
Amity
Total System
Total Stored in
Pueblo Reservoir
1987-88
1988-89
9,419.33
13,619.82
2,628.07
9,470.75
4,463.62
1/
1/
1/
I/
Z/
8,608.93
11,559.99
2,786.89
12,701.17
3,831.97
1989-90
1/
1/
1/
1/
V
412.62 1/
552.57 1/
27,261.02
12,562.37 1/
18,838.91
25,253.10 V
16,443.90 4/
13,616.94 5/
55,322.25
22,647.46 V
186,929.02
148,072.07
38,050.00
40,990.74
1/ Stored in Pueblo Reservoir.
2/ Stored in John Martin Reservoir.
3/ 2,500 A.F. stored in Pueblo Reservoir.
A/ 720 A.F. stored in Pueblo Reservoir.
5/ 4,061 A.F. stored in Pueblo Reservoir.
21
DRAFT
The winter water stored in Pueblo Reservoir is subject to be spilled if the
storage space occupied within the conservation pool is required for the
storage of project water or if the storage space it occupies is within the
joint-use pool which must be evacuated pursuant to the project flood control
criteria by April 15 of each year.
During 1984, 1985, and 1987, stored winter water was spilled to accommodate
either project needs for storage. Since the participants who store winter
water in Pueblo Reservoir must pay a service charge of $3.20 per acre-foot for
the maximum amount of winter water storage service provided including any
releases during the winter storage period, the subsequent spillage of winter
stored water places such participants at financial risk.
The direct-flow participants have requested the district and Reclamation to
evaluate the potential for dedicating up to 40,000 acre-feet of storage in
Pueblo Reservoir to the winter water storage program. This would assure the
direct-flow participants of up to 40,000 acre-feet of winter water, if
available, without having to fear that such water would be spilled to provide
storage space for project water or flood control.
Later in this report, the discussion of operation study scenarios presents the
results of this evaluation.
22
•11
CHAPTER VI
Long-Term Contracts
Reclamation executed water service contract, 5-07-70-W0086, for the FryingpanArkansas Project with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District on
January 21, 1965.
This contract has been amended five times as follows:
Amendment No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
August 31, 1976
October 23, 1981
August 8, 1984
January 23, 1986
February 26, 1988
Amendment No. 2 established the initial delivery for project water as
January 1, 1982 and initiated the 50-year period for repayment of the
district's obligation. The cost of project water delivered to the district
was set at $8.00 per acre-foot, subject to review and revision beginning
January 1, 1987, and every four years thereafter. The current cost of project
water is $8.00 per acre-foot.
On July 10, 1979 Reclamation executed contract 9-07-70-W0315, with the
district for conveyance service from the Fountain Valley Conduit.
On the same
date, the district executed a subcontract with the cities of Colorado Springs
and Fountain, the Security and Stratmoor Hill Water Districts, and the
Widefield Homes Water Company for conveyance service from the conduit.
Payments pursuant to the contract were initiated in 1986.
The conveyance
service schedule is presented on Table 1.
The schedule calls for maximum service to begin in contract year 21 (2006)
which is predicated on the usage of 20,100 acre-feet of project water.
23
DRAFT
Table
Fountain Valley Authority
Conveyance Schedule for Fountain Valley Conduit
Entity
Contract
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Calendar
Year
Colorado
Springs
(AF)
Security
(AF)
Fountain
(AF)
1986
1,200
500
400
1987600
1988
700
i
1989
800
1990
1,646
900
1991
1,000
1992
1,100
1993
1,200
1994
1,300
1995
1,400
1996
1,500
1997
1,600
1998
1,700
1999
1,800
2000
1,900
2,000
3,000
2001
6,000
2002
2003
9,000
2004
12,800
2005
14,353
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
../
Ni
2025
v
24
Stratmoor
Hills
(AF)
250
1
Widefield
(AF)
1,000
1,500
601
v
Total
(AF)
3,450
4,050
4,150
4,601
5,847
5,947
6,047
6,147
6,247
6,347
6,474
6,547
6,647
6,747
6,847
9,547
12,547
15,547
18,547
20,100
DR FT
Reclamation has entered into contracts with several entities for the storage and
conveyance of non-project water. These entities, along with the contract number,
date of execution, term, and general purpose are shown on Table 2.
Throughout the development of the project, Reclamation has indicated that there may
be an opportunity for various entities to enter into additional contracts for
storage of non-project water in project facilities. This storage has been
categorized as both "firm" and "if-and-when available."
Both the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company and Board of Waterworks of Pueblo
have long standing requests before Reclamation for firm storage in East Slope
project reservoirs.
The Twin Lakes request is for 20,000 acre-feet, and the Pueblo
request is for at least 10,000 and perhaps as much as 20,000 acre-feet, depending
upon price and conditions.
During 1985, Reclamation held two meetings with prospective users of East Slope
project storage to explain a possible storage service program that could be provided
by the project and to obtain indications of interest in such a program.
entities responded.
A number of
Table 3 presents a summary of the response.
The amount of storage requested approaches 99,500 acre-feet.
Reclamation has not
established a program to contract for storage service at this time.
In addition to the interest in contracting for use of project storage, there is
interest on the part of several entities for exchange of non-project water with
project water.
Reclamation expects to offer the following three types of long-term contracts: (1)
storage, (2) exchange, and (3) storage and exchange.
being developed.
25
Details for the program are
Table 2
Long-Term Contracts for Storage and Conveyance
of Non-Project Water
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
Entities
Contract Number
Date of
Execution
Term
(Years)
4/25/69
(Amendment No. 1,
2/1/72)
40
(began on
10/1/77)
Conveyance and Storage
(10,000 A.F.)
25
(began on
10/1/77)
Conveyance
General Purpose
Busk Ivanhoe
(formally High Line
Canal Company)
9-07-70-W0099
Board of Water Works
of Pueblo, Colorado
2-07-70-W0104
2/1/72
The Colorado Fuel and
6-07-70-W0089
Iron Corporation
(now assigned to the
cities of Aurora and
Colorado Springs and
Board of Water Works of
Pueblo, Colorado)
11/1/65
Indefinite
Sale of Lands, Replacement Storage, and additional storage
(Colorado Springs 17,416 A.F.
Aurora - 5,000 A.F.
Pueblo - 5,000 A.F.
Twin Lakes Reservoir
and Canal Company
7-07-70-L0056
11/19/77
(Amendment No. 1,
6/14/77)
Indefinite
Sale of Lands and
replacement storage
(54,452 A.F.)
Homestake Project
6-07-70-W0090
12/14/65
(Related MOA
executed on
2/16/83
3/29/83
1/27/86
.
50
(began on
1/1/82
Storage and Conveyance
(30,000 A.F.)
8/3/84
40
(began on
10/1/84)
Conveyance
Pueblo West Metropolitan District
4-07-40-W0692
26
DRAFT
Table 3
Requests for Long-Term Water
Storage Service Contracts
Entity
Water Use
Amount
Acre-Feet
Type of Storage Requested
Twin Lakes Reservoir
and Canal Company
Municipal/
Irrigation
20,000
Firm
Board of Water
Works of Pueblo
Municipal
10,000/
20,000
Firm
City of Colorado
Springs
Municipal
CF&I Steel
Industrial
2,000
If-and-when available; use within
district.
Public Service Co.
Industrial
10,000
If-and-when available; use within
district.
Pueblo West
Metropolitan District
Municipal
4,500
If-and-when available; use within
district.
Catlin Canal Company
Irrigation
13,000
If-and-when available; use within
district.
Holbrook Mutual
Irrigating Company
Irrigation
10,000
If-and-when available; use within
district.
City of Aurora
Municipal
20,000
If-and-when available; use outside
district.
Municipal water stored in space
in space provided in the district's
allocation principles.
27
DRAFT
CHAPTER VII
' Order of Spill
By letter dated October 22, 1984, the district provided Reclamation its
recommendations on the operation of the East Slope project reservoirs during
those occasions when water must be spilled. Subsequently, Amendment No. 4 to
Contract No. 5-07-70-W0086 was executed on January 23, 1986 which included an
article entitled Reservoir Spills. This article follows in its entirety:
"5.
Article 13 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by the
following Article 13:
13.(a)
Whenever water is evacuated from Pueblo, Twin Lakes, and
Turquoise Reservoirs to meet the necessities of Project flood
control, power generation purposes, storage of transmountain
Project water, storage of active Project water, and Project
operational requirements, except as provided in Subarticle
13.(b) below, the water evacuated shall be charged in the
following order:
1.
Against water stored under contracts for if-and -when
available storage space for entities which will use the
water outside the District boundaries.
2.
Against water stored under contracts for if-and-when
available storage space for entities which will use the
28
FT
,
water within the District boundaries.
This evacuation
will be charged pro rata against water stored under all
such like contracts at the time of the evacuation.
3.
Against any winter storage water in excess of 70,000 acrefeet.
4.
Against water stored under contracts with municipal
entities within the boundaries of the District, which
water is neither Project water nor return flow from
Project water and which water is limited to 163,100 acrefeet less any Project water purchased and stored by
municipal users. This evacuation will be charged pro rata
against the water stored under all such like contracts at
the time of evacuation.
5.
Against winter storage water not in excess of 70,000 acrefeet.
6.
Against Project water accumulated from the Arkansas River
and its tributaries.
(b)
Notwithstanding the order of evacuation of water listed in
Subarticle 13.(a) above, evacuation of water from storage
pursuant to existing firm storage contracts, the High Line
storage contract and future Board of Waterworks of Pueblo,
Colorado and Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company to satisfy
29
prior commitments will be made pursuant to the terms of such
storage contracts.')
Several scenarios described later in this report reflect criteria which varies
from that contained in Amendment No. 4.
Implementation of any such changes to
the reservoir spill criteria would necessitate a new amendment to the
contract.
30
FT
CHAPTER VIII
Pueblo Dam and Reservoir Enlargement
The district requested Reclamation to assess the potential to raise Pueblo Dam
and increase the reservoir storage capacity.
Appraisal level engineering
evaluations were performed to develop conceptual plans and estimates of
alternative structural modifications to increase the dam height.
alternative dam height increases were evaluated.
Two
Alternative 1 reflects a
5-foot increase and is intended to represent minimal structural modifications.
Alternative 2 is a 10-foot increase and represents more extensive
modifications to the dam structure.
Increasing the height of the dam by 5- or 10-foot increments would result in
additional increments in storage capacity of 29,300 and 60,500 acre-feet,
respectively.
If it is assumed that the exclusive flood control and joint-
use pools would remain unchanged at 27,024 and 65,952 acre-feet, respectively,
the reservoir storage allocation of Pueblo Reservoir would be as follows:
Pueblo Reservoir Storage Capacities (Acre-Feet)
Alternative 1
(5-foot)
Present
Dead
Alternative 2
(10-foot)
3,732
3,73.?
3,732
26,623
26,623
26,623
234,347
263,647
294,847
Joint-Use
65,952
65,952
65,952
Flood Control
27,024
27,024
27,024
357,678
386,978
418,178
Inactive
Conservation
Total Capacity
31
Preliminary cost estimates for each alternative are presented below:
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Alternative 1/
5-foot
Embankment Section
Concrete Dam Section
Spillway Section
Recreation Facility
Relocation
Alternative V
10-foot
$2,087,000
238,000
1,555,000
$ 4,077,000
509,000
2,899,000
110,000
804,000
Field Cost
3,990,000
8,289,000
Indirects
1,210,000
2,511,000
$5,200,000
$10,800,000
Total Construction Cost
The field costs include a 25 percent allowance for contingencies.
Prices are
as of January 1988.
At this level of study, the raising of the dam appears to be technically
feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Additional details concerning the
two alternatives are contained in the Appraisal Design Report, dated June
1988, presented in Appendix B.
32
DRAFT
CHAPTER IX
Project Water Demand
The demand for Project water must come from entities located within the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
The district entertains
requests for project water from domestic, municipal, and irrigation entities
and individuals each year.
Table 4 presents a summary of the district's
project water allocations since 1972. (Source:
1988 Annual Report,
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.)
Since the supply of project water is to supplement the supplies available to
the entities and individuals from non-project sources, the use of project
water increases during years in which there are lesser supplies of nonproject water.
The following is a discussion of the estimated demands for project water used
in the operation studies discussed later in this report.
Municipal
As discussed in Chapter IV, Allocation Principles and Water Allocation Policy,
51 percent of the new water diverted and stored by the project is available
for municipal use in the district each year. This is further allocated to
Arkansas Valley cities, towns, and entities lying east and west of Pueblo (12
and 4 percent, respectively), Pueblo (10 percent), and Fountain Valley
Authority (25 percent).
In making these allocations, the district Insert
33
FT
Table 4
PROJECT WATER ALLOCATIONS
ORGANIZATION
Avondale Water District
Baldwin Stubbs
Barnard Creek
Beaver Park
Bessemer
Bovee Trout Ranch
Bray Allen
Canon City
Canon Heights Wig.
Catlin Canal
CF&I
Colorado Canal
Colorado Springs
Colo. Water Protection Assoc.
Cottonwood-Maxwell
Crowley County
Ewing-Koppe Ditch
Excelsior Ditch
Falls 6F Ranch
Fort Lyon Canal
Fountain
Fountain Valley Authority
Fowler
Garden Park
Green Gulch
Green. Hugh E.
Helena Ditch
High Line Canal
Hobson #1
Holbrook Mutual
Ideal Basic
KAAS Kop Base
Lamar
Laughlin Ditch
McClave Water Assoc.
McClave School Dist.
Meier, Charles
Michigan Ditch
Olney Springs
O'Neal Water Works
Otero Ditch
Oxford Farmers
Pickett Ditch
Pleasant Valley Ditch
Plum Creek Ditch
Poncha Springs
Ream Wells #1&2
Riverside Allen
Riverside Dairy Ditch
Rocky Ford
Salida
Security
South Swink Water Co.
St. Charles Mesa
Stout Ditch
Stratmoor Hills
Thomas,Lloyd 1.
Transit Mix
W-Y Partners
Wafford-Bert Still
Walker Ditch
Wedgewood Duck Club
Widefield Homes
U.S. Geological Survey
1972-1979
0
0
0
0
13,435
0
0
0
0
16,474
2,093
20,218
17,425
13,500*
5
0
0
477
0
26,152
737'
0
0
368
2
0
50
9,643
10
20,704
40
0
2,960
100'
0
0
0
4
64
0
1,200
3,275
0
0
0
0
80'
0
15
500'
0
987"
0
1,650
0
365*
0
366*
0.
5
13
0
1,365*
600"
1980
0
0
0
0
3,485
0
0
20
0
2,306
1,071
11,580
14.140
1,000*
o
187
0
391
0
15,778
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,500
50
10,000
0
0
1,000
0
46
0
0
0
10
0
700
840
0
0
0
0
40'
0
15
0
0
o
0
290
0
210
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
600"
1981 ,
25
0
0
650
2,050
0
20
20
60
2,050
o
1982
1983
0
0
2
500
3,000
0
0
9
0
4,000
0
0
2
300
0
0
0
0
15
0
250
0
0
1,500*
o
2,050
5,142
1,500'
10,200
16,500
1,500"
o
o
196
3
133
10"
4,441
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
2,050
0
1,890
550
5
0
10'
17,500
0
0
0
60
0
10"
0
5,000
10
5,000
o
o
0
826
0
0
0
0
6
10
0
376
501
24
63
10
0
0
0
0
165
0
464
18
300
0
371
0
0
1,000
0
0
20
20'
6
20
0
1,130
750
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
0
500
0
o
625
6
0
10"
0
0
15,545
0
0
0
10'
0
0
25
0
o
0
2.000
0
0
20
20'
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
1984
1985
1986
1987
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
12
2
0
3,000
3
0
0
2
0
5,700
3
0
o
o
9
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
1,500'
o
0
12
0
10"
0
0
26.694
0
0
0
10"
0
0
50
0
0
1
1,500
0
o
20
20'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
1
0
o
0
300
0
0
0
900
1
0
1
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
750'
o
o
9
o
o
o
o
164
2,093
1,200"
o
625
12
0
10"
0
0
6.800
61
200
0
10"
0
2.500
50
0
o
1
0
0
1
0
0
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
20
20'
8
10
15
0
877
0
0
0
45
0
20
0
0
1
0
2
0
600
3
9
0
5,000
o
0
12
0
10'
0
0
20.100
0
0
0
10'
0
0
50
0
o
o
20
20"
0
10
12
1.000
1,150
0
0
0
45
0
0
30
0
250
0
o
o
1
600'
0
625
12
0
10'
0
0
5,350
61
0
0
10'
0
3,000
50
o
o
o
0
o
0
20
20'
6
20'
7'
500
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
20
0
125
0
o
o
1
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
40*
40*
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15"
0
0
25'
0
0
40°
0
0
25'
0
0
Total Project Water
136,882,
66,219
23,944
66,107
19,133
29,239
24,285
23,645
12.522
'Total Return Flow
18,000
1,040
1,510
1,540
1,540
1.540
845
1,305
732
154,882
67,259
25,454
67,647
20,673
30,779
25,130
24,950
13,254
TOTALS
**Allocated for USGS Transit Loss
34
DR FT
acknowledged ". . . that it is unlikely that any entity receiving municipal
and domestic water will require its minimum allocation for a number of years,
their demand will increase, and in the interim each of such municipal and
domestic water users shall annually, on or before April 1 of each year, advise
the Board of its anticipated demand, if such full demand does not constitute
an abandonment of this allocation and such time be allocated first to
municipal and domestic users by the Board consistent with Paragraph 6.1, 6.2,
6.3, and B.4 hereof.
Entities named in any one of said paragraphs shall have
the first option to purchase such unused portion allocated in that year.
If
not so purchased, allocated water remaining unsold may thereafter be offered
to any other user on such basis as the Board of Directors may the determine.
There shall be no credit for water not demanded."
As a result, no municipal or domestic water user is required to take a minimum
amount of project water in a given year.
The Fountain Valley Authority, pursuant to its contractual arrangements with
the district, and in turn through the district contract with the United States
for conveyance service from the Fountain Valley Conduit, is obligated to make
payments based upon a schedule that reflects a minimum number of acre-feet of
project water expected to be conveyed in a given.year. The member entities
are not obligated to use the minimum acre-feet displayed in the schedule, but
the annual payment must be equivalent to that associated with the scheduled
minimum use.
35
For the operation studies, three levels of municipal and domestic use were
estimated: current, near-term, and ultimate.
Contract years five (5) and
twenty-one (21) from the schedule were assumed to represent current and nearterm use of project water by the authority.
Project water use by the other
municipal and domestic users is expected to be minimum through the near term.
The estimated municipal and domestic demand for project water used in the
operation studies are:
Fountain Valley
Authority
Current (1989)
Near Term (2006)
Other
Total
4,601
399
5,000
20,100
900
21,000
The ultimate municipal and domestic demand varies in the operation study
scenarios as a result of different assumptions concerning the various
operations criteria parameters reflected in the scenarios.
Irri ciation
The Bureau of Reclamation conducted land classification investigations prior
to project authorization in 1962. Table 5 presents a summary of the acres of
irrigated and non-irrigated land by ditch system within the district. This
information was displayed in the Supplement to Project Lands Appendix,
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, dated August 26, 1963. The total irrigable area
within the district was estimated to be 280,600 acres.
36
Table
DIVERSION
ACRES OF IRRIGATED AND NON-IRRIGATED LAND BY DITCHES OR
WITHIN
SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY 1/
DITCHES
Bessemer
Excelsior
Collier
Colorado
Highline
Oxford-Farmers
Otero
Catlin
Holbrook
Rocky Ford
Fort Lyon
Las Animas
Consolidated,
Town,Extension
Subtotal
RIVER MILESPUEBLO DAM
TO
HEADGATE
TOTAL
CLASS
1 & 2
ACRES
TOTAL CLASS
1 &2
DRY
IRRIGATED
ACRES
ACRES
CLASS
6
IRRIGATED
ACRES
TOTAL
IRRIGATED
ACRES
0.0
16.0
24.0
28.5
32.0
37.0
46.0
52.0
57.3
58.3
77.3
23,526
1,862
592
43,009
24,839
6,060
6,681
19,329
17,526
7,765
97;273
22,107
1,789
550
34,745
23,211
5,802
5,664
18,479
14,041
7,728
85,910
1,419
73
42
8,264
1,628
258
1,017
850
3,485
37
11,363
70
209
98
9,044
896
17
331
281
903
478
5,434
22,177
1,998
648
43,789
24,107
5,819
5,995
18,760
14,944
8,206
91,344
92.8
7,860
7,027
833
1,j4
8,641
256,322
227,053
29,269
19,375
246,428
1,068 2/
Subtotal
255,254
Area above Pueblo Dam
12,538
Area-Fountain
Creek
12 805 3/
Total
280,597
Rounded
280,600
1/
2/
3/
26, 1963
Source: Supplement to Project Lands Appendix, Fryingpan Arkansas Project - August not Within District
is
Area
Service
Ditches
n
Extensio
Town,
ated,
Consolid
Animas
A portion of the Las
Boundary. To make numbers fit, this is estimated to be 1068 acres.
Not classified
37
Historical water studies were performed by Reclamation in the late 1960's
which lead to estimates of the demand for supplemental irrigation water. The
studies focused on the irrigation systems located within the district between
Pueblo Dam and John Martin Reservoir.
The estimates were derived using the 38-year period, 1928 through 1965. The
average annual demand for supplemental irrigation water at Pueblo Dam that was
used in Reclamation operation studies for planning purposes was estimated to
be
acre-feet per year.
From the limited documentation available, it is
not possible to determine with any degree of certainty how supplies available
from off-stream storage reservoirs and groundwater sources may have been
accommodated in the development of the estimates. However, since the supplies
expected to be available from the project for irrigation do not approach the
earlier estimates of demand, new estimates were developed for this study.
Paragraph 11 of the district's Water Allocation Policy states ". . . that it
is the policy of the district not to replace with project water decreed water
sold by persons or entities."
The district and its water users must comply with the Reclamation Reform Act
of 1982 (P.L. 97-293, approved October 12, 1982), as amended.
•The policy, paragraph 11, and the Act have led to the situation where some
irrigable lands within the district are not eligible to receive supplemental
irrigation water from the project.
38
The new estimates of demand_for supplemental irrigation water at Pueblo Dam
used in this study were developed by focusing on nine systems whose diversion
structures are located between Pueblo Dam and John Martin Reservoir. The
systems are:
Bessemer, Colorado, High Line, Oxford-Farmers, Otero Catlin,
Holbrook, Ft. Lyon, and Las Animas.
Displayed below are the winter water
storage and project water deliveries to each system during water years 1988
and 1989.
Winter Water Storage Program
And Project Water Deliveries
Water Years 1988 and 1989 1/ 2/
1983 If
Total
Deliveries
1988
Winter
Project
Water
Water
1989
Project
Winter
Water
Water
1989 1/
Total
Deliveries
Bessemer
Colorado
High Line
Oxford-Farmers
Otero
Catlin
Hobrook
Ft. Lyon
Las Animas
15,687
1,819
21,669
2,376
1,500
13,755
9,568
28,000
-
9,187
13,319
1,176
6,755
2,465
-
6,500
1,819
8,350
1,200
1,500
7,000
7,103
28,000
-
8,586
7701
11,428
4,019
8,119
3,911
-
10,937
3,225
7,501
984
1,978
4,909
9,436
45,600
-
19,523
3,926
18,929
5,003
1,978
13,028
13,347
45,600
-
Total
94,374
32,902
61,472
36,764
84,570
121,334
1/
2/
3/
Water year: October 1 through September 30.
Water deliveries at Pueblo Dam.
Includes delivery of any prior year carryover water.
Sales of land and water rights by individuals within the Colorado Canal System
have reduced the acreage eligible to receive project water to about 15 percent
of the original service area. Therefore, the estimated demand for this system
is associated with about 6,450 acres.
39
FT
The Las Animas system has not pursued becoming eligible to receive project
water.
However, for the purposes of this study, a normal demand was
estimated.
The Reclamation model that simulates the river and reservoir operations of the
project East Slope facilities requires that the agricultural demand for
project water at Pueblo Dam be generated externally, thus becoming a table of
input to the model.
The method developed to estimate the agricultural demand was based upon
several arbitrary assumptions. These are:
1.
Each entity (9 systems) would not seek more than a fixed maximum
amount of water regardless of runoff conditions.
2. The maximum annual demand expressed in inches per acre at Pueblo Dam
was arbitrarily established.
3. The estimated quantities represent the total supplemental irrigation
water from project sources. These sources include both the winter
water storage program and project water.
Table 6 presents the irrigable acres, and assumed maximum demand expressed in
inches per acre and acre-feet for each of the nine systems.
It was necessary to generate 20 years of monthly agricultural demand data for
input to the model in order to reflect the variability in demand throughout
the period. The period selected was 1966 through 1985. This was
40
Table 6
Estimated Maximum Annual
Demand for Irrigation Water
Canal
System
Bessemer
Colorado
1/
Irrigable
Acres
23,526
6,450 1/
Assumed Maximum
Annual Demand
Inches/Acres
Assumed Maximum
Annual Demand
1,000 A.F.
9
17.6
9
4.8
High Line
24,839
9
18.6
OxfordFarmers
6,060
9
4.5
Otero
6,681
6
3.3
Catlin
19,329
9
14.5
Holbrook
17,526
9
13.1
Ft. Lyon
97,273
6
48.6
Las Animas
6,792
6
3.4
Total
208,476
128.4
Represents approximately 15 percent of total irrigable acres.
41
FT
accomplished using data, depending upon the system, obtained from the United
Stated Geological Survey, Pueblo Subdistrict, or generated by Reclamation.
The Geological Survey data was derived from the data base developed for the
interactive-accounting model of the Arkansas River Basin. (Burns, 1988.)
Reclamation data resulted from a historical water utilization analyses of the
diversion records for the systems.
Table 7 presents the annual quantities of estimated agricultural demand for
each of the nine systems for the period 1966-1985 used in this study.
It should be noted that as a result of real-time conditions in the future, one
or more of the entities may desire to obtain amounts of water greater than the
assumed "maximums" displayed in any given year. Since climatic and hydrologic
conditions, crop prices received, and the cost of water all influence the
decision of the irrigators in a given year to purchase water, the use of the
term "maximum" in the context of this study should not be interpreted in such
a manner that these amounts can never be exceeded.
for the model and use of the data displayed on Table
42
Finite data are required
appears reasonable.
DR
Table 7
Estimated Supplemental Irrigation Water Demand
at Pueblo Dam
Arkansas River Basin
(1,000 A.F.)
Water
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Bessemer
Ditch
Colorado
Canal
16.3
13.7
10.1
14.5
7.0
13.6
17.1
5.8
16.3
16.3
17.5
17.6
17.6
4.1
9.8
17.6
0.9
5.3
5.3
7.0
4.8
Totals
233.4
96.0
Average
11.7
4.8 1/
High Line
Oxford
Farmers
Otero
Canal
Catlin
Canal
Holbrook
Canal
8.1
2.3
8.2
0.2
3.0
2.6
0.7
5.3
8.5
6.4
4.7
7.5
7.2
4.3
4.4
10.2
2.5
9.2
5.0
3.3
3.2
2.1
3.2
2.0
2.2
4.4
4.5
3.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.7
2.5
4.5
0.9
0.1
0
0
3.3
14.5
11.8
0.7
10.7
5.9
3.9
14.5
0.5
14.5
9.1
14.5
14.5
14.5
3.6
12.5
14.5
2.6
7.9
2.1
3.8
13.1
103.6
57.4
66.0
2.1
2.9
3.3
Fort Lyon
Canal
Las
Animas
Total
1.4
7.1
0
13.1
0.5
7.7
3.7
0
0
2.1
36.1
25.3
48.6
43.1
48.6
48.6
23.5
0
8.6
48.6
9.9
9.3
0
0
3.4
0.3
0
0
0.1
0.6
3.4
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
0
3.4
3.4
3.0
2.6
0.6
1.0
67.2
59.1
47.1
48.6
39.4
48.4
97.5
64.7
117.0
104.0
114.4
117.3
91.9
34.9
62.4
120.0
29.3
49.6
21.1
36.3
176.2
231.2
364.2
41.8
1,370.2
8.8
11.5
18.2
2.1
68.5
1/ This quanity represented demand assuming Colorado Canal is 15 percent agriculture.
43
SOUTHEASTERN
COLORADO
Water Conservancy
District
WA i t.R ALLOCATION POLICY
AMENDED AUGUST 1988
1. Supplemental irrigation water will be sold exclusively to ditch or canal companies within
the District with decreed water rights, and nor to individuals under such a ditch or canal.
2.
Project water will be sold to municipalities and domestic water users associations within
the District, and will be supplemental only unless otherwise agreed upon by the Board of
Directors.
3.
Project water will not be allocated for. nor can it be used for speculation.
•
.1 •
To prevent waste of Project water, deliveries will be reduced or suspended by the Board
f Directors until such waste ceases.
All Project water will be allocated eaukablv -in accordance with the Allocation Principles.
and subject to approval by the Board on the basis of availability of water, and the merits
of each individual application.
6.
All Project water sold will be measured at either Sugar Loaf Dam or Pueblo Dam, and
transportation losses assigned by the Division Engineer will be the responsibility of the
purchaser.
i•
The selling price of Project water for all classes of use shall be the same at the point
of release. Additional costs which result from specific delivery works will be added to
the base cost of water
8.
Project water allocated for agricultural purposes must be used before May 1, of the following year, otherwise the allotment will be considered to be canceled by the entity, and
monies paid will be forfeited. (10/22/81)
9.
Project water purchased by a municipality or domestic water user association shall be
stored in the 163,100 acre-foot space set aside in the Allocation Principles. (Paragraph
E). Carry-over storage for municipal and domestic purposes shall be subject to appropriate evaporation and transportation charges, and water stored in carry-over space shall not
be subject to reallocation.
10. Two allocations will be made each year, in order that Project water might be more efficiently managed by the District and the entities. The first allocation will be awarded at
the May meeting of the Board of Directors, and the second by the Allocation Committee
from such waters as may be available on July 10. Payment for the first allocation must
be received in full prior to the first delivery, and not later than June 20, or waters will
be reallocated by the Committee to other entities. Water allocated in the second allocation must be paid for in full within one week of notification of the amount allocated.
Appendix A
ed to supply supplemental water,
11. Inasmuch as Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water is design
Conservancy District declare
the Board of Directors of the Southeastern Colorado Water
ct water decreed water sold
that it is the Policy of the District not to replace with Proje
consider th,2 total supply of
by persons or entities. In applying this ruHe, the Board shall
(2/19/81)
the applicant and the percentage thereof sold or replaced.
for ''Acts of God", breaks in its
12. The District is not responsible for shortage of water, nor
such interruption occur,
works, or other contingencies affecting its operation. When
of operation. (6/20/63)
reasonable time for repairs will be required for resumption
confines of the District which do not
13: It is the intent of the Board that entities within the
against in the future, and will
buy Project water in any single "ear will not be prejudiced
not be placed in jeopardy for subsequent allocations.
involving test river runs. a program
14. Whenever the Board of Directors enters into Programs
d out with the State Enginto notify all water users affected by the study will be worke
eer and the Division Engineer.
constitutes the Applicant's agreement
. 15. The submission of an application for Project water
federal and state laws, includthat .(a) it is subject to and will compiv with all applicable
thereunder, the District's
ing the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 and the regulations
Allocation Policy, relevant pordecreed Water Allocation Principles. the District's Water
the terms and conditions of
tions of the District's Contract with the United States, and
District from any liability,
this letter, (b) it will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the
and employees may suffer
expenses or damages which the District, its directors, agents
(c) that it has no claims
arising from any failure of the applicant to so comply, and
against the District for past provision of water. (8/18/88)
-2-
..
Appraisal Design Report
Pueblo Dam Enlargement
Fryingpan-Arkansas Operation Study
June 1988
This planning design report presents appraisal level engineering
concepts for increasing the conservation storage in Pueblo Reservoir by
raising the dam. Increased reservoir storage is being considered as one
alternative under the Fryingpan-Arkansas Operation Study. The purpose of
this investigation is to develop conceptual plans and estimates
of
alternative structural modifications to increase the dam height. Two
alternative dam height increases are evaluated.
Alternative 1 would be a
5-foot increase and is intended to represent minimal structural
modifications.
Alternative 2 is a 10-foot increase and represents more
extensive modifications to the dam structure. At this level of study,
the
raising of the dam is technically feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Background
The existing dam is about 10,250 feet in length consisting of earthfill
embankments located on either side of a concrete buttress center section.
The concrete section contains an uncontrolled overflow spillway about
550 feet in crest length with a terminal flip bucket. The maximum height
of the dam is about 200 feet above the bed of the Arkansas River. The
crest lengths of the right and left embankment are about 4,900 feet and
3,600 feet, respectively.
The crest width is 30 feet and the upstream and
downstream slopes are 3:1 and 2.5:1, respectively.
The crest elevation is
4925.
The concrete dam section is about 1,750 feet in length with the
crest elevation at 4921 and the top of the parapet walls at elevation
4925.
The spillway crest elevation is 4898.7.
The maxim= water surface is
elevation 4919 which allows 6 feet of freeboard.
about 193,000 ft3is at maximum water surface.
of the reservoir is about 358,000 acre-feet.
Appendix B
The spillway capacity is
The total storage capacity
Due to the preliminary nature of this investigation, analysis of all
design concerns could not be accomplished within the time and funding
limits.
Therefore, a number of assumptions were made in developing the
proposed concepts.
These assumptions will need to be addressed and
verified if more detailed analyses are completed in the future.
A major
assumption is that the dam and foundation can safely withstand the
increased hydrostatic and weight loadings imposed by the increased
reservoir and dam.
The following table presents the current and proposed elevations for the
reservoir allocations and the dam.
Allocations below the existing active
conservation pool would not be affected by the modifications.
Current
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
(5-Foot)
(10-Foot)
Crest of Dam (without Camber)
4925.0
4930.0 1/
4935.0 1/
Maximum Water Surface
4919.0
4924.0
4929.0
4898.7
4903.7
4908.7
Top of Joint Use
4893.8
4899.1
4904.4
Top of Active Conservation
4880.5
4886.7
4892.8
Top of Exclusive Flood Control
(Spillway Crest)
1/
Top of parapet wall.
The elevations for the proposed allocations are approximate and were
interpolated from the existing reservoir capacity table.
The exclusive flood
control and joint use pools would remain unchanged at 27,024 acre-feet and
65,952 acre-feet, respectively.
The incremental increase in active
conservation storage for the 5-foot increase would be 29,300 acre-feet and
for the 10-foot increase would be 60,500 acre-feet.
Alternative 1, 5-Foot Increase
There are at least three reasonable options to increase the height of the
embankment sections of the dam:
(1) earthfill, (2) reinforced earth, and
(3) parapet wall.
The parapet wall was selected because it would add the
least amount of weight to the dam and the additional height is needed only
to meet freeboard requirements.
not be a water retaining feature.
The parapet wall on the embankment would
Its purpose would be to provide
protection from splashover due to high waves.
The base of the parapet wall
would be located completely in the impervious zone of the dam.
The
freestanding wall would extend across the entire length of the two
embankment sections.
The overall wall height would be 9 feet with the
lower 4 feet buried in the embankment.
A typical cross section is shown
conceptually in Figure 1.
The options for the nonoverflow section of the concrete dam include:
(1) raising the upstream parapet wall, and (2) mass concrete to increase
:he dam crest elevation. Because the reservoir level would only exceed
elevation 4921 (existing dam crest) during rare flood events and the
duration of the water level above elevation 4921 would be only for a short
time period, the increased height parapet wall was selected as the more
reasonable option.
The existing upstream, open—jointed parapet wall would
be removed and replaced with a watertight wall extending to elevation 4930.
Figure 3 shows the proposed parapet in cross section.
It should be noted that under the existing reservoir allocation scheme, the
spillway crest elevation will have to be increased to effectuate an
increase in active conservation storage.
The storage space between the
current top of active conservation, elevation 4880.5, and the existing
spillway crest, elevation 4898.7, is dedicated to flood control and joint
use purposes.
Therefore, to avoid any reduction in either of these
allocated storages, the spillway crest will need to be raised.
The options to increase the elevation of the spillway crest can be divided
into two groups, gated or ungated. The gated options would require a
number of support piers and probably a superstructure bridge across the top
of the spillway for operating equipment and access.
The gated options
wd require rerouting of floods through the reservoir to evaluate impacts
cn spillway capacity.
was selected.
For this preliminary evaluation, an ungated option
The concept for the- ungated,optiomwould. be-to increase-the
..,
crest elevation 5 feet by adding concrete to the existing crest.
The
modified downstream slope of the spillway would be designed to meet the:
start of the flip bucket curvature at elevation 4869.8.
Figure 4 presents
conceptually a cross section of the modified spillway profile.
Alternative 2, 10—Foot Increase
Because the proposed maximum water surface would be as much as 6.5 feet
higher than the impervious zone of the existing earthfill, the embankment
height will need to be increased.
In consideration of minimizing
additional weight on the dam a combination of increased earthfill and a
parapet wall was selected.
The earthen embankment would be increased to
elevation 4930 and topped with a parapet wall to elevation 4935.
The
occurrence of water on the new embankment between elevation 4925 and 4929
would only happen under rare flood events.
Based on the hydrograph for the
existing inflow design flood, water would be in the upper 4 feet of the
surcharge pool for only about 12 hours.
In light of the rarity of the
flood event and the short duration of water levels at the upper elevations,
incrcased slopes for the new earthfill appear to be a reasonable
consideration.
For this evaluation the upstream and downstream slopes of
tne new enbankment were assumed to be 2:1.
described under Alternative 1.
The parapet wall would be as
This proposal is shown conceptually in
cross section in Figure 2.
The concept for the nonoverflow section of the concrete portion of the dam
is the same as Alternative 1.
The watertight parapet wall would be about
14 feet in height.
The spillway crest would be increased to elevation 4908.7 using the same
method as proposed under Alternative 1.
Recreation Facilities
The increased reservoir elevations will impact existing recreation
development located around the reservoir.
The impacts due to actual
inundation from the increased active conservation storage would be minimal
.,
anc the relocation of the facilities should not be costly.
However, when
reservoir levels increase into the joint use and flood control pools, the
impacts become incrementally more significant. The followinc
represents a preliminary inventory and summarizes the type and number of
.lazilities affected by various reservoir elevations.
Tcc of Active Conservation
(5-Frot)
(10-Foot) i (Exist)
4E90
4695
4900
Northern Plains
Vaults Toilets
Flush Toilets
Caoper Service
Dug? Station
Carper Pads
Croup !res
Vaul: Toilets
1
2
0
Flush
Sor:h Snore Marina
Vat...: Toilets
0
(10-Foot)
.;%:::
16
1
1
0
0
41
3
3
1
0
92
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
:
1
:
:
1
2
2
3
26
26
6
TI
30
030 ;'
Total
4
5
2
1
169
7
2
1
215
:
2
1
0
Sou:n 'n:r.! Marina
Vault Toilet
.Juriper Breaks
Vaul: Toilets
Carper Pads
Picnic Pads
Spillway Crest
(5-Foot)
4905
3
6
7
11
2
17
24
1
1
1
5
86
30
c%rftnik
Va.:at Toilets
0
*Aricansas Point
I
1
Cat ire
Flush Toilets
Carper Service
Dun: S'stion
Cacrer Paos
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C.av .
1 se
Vault Toilets
Pads
Shelter
i
I
I
0
0
0
0
12
0
I
I
I
1
16
0
'Proposed Facilities to be Constructed
1/ Maxioum Existing Water Surface 4919.
•
1
0
0
0
2
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
95
2
16
2
16
2
16
1
1
Cost Estimate
Preliminary cost estimates for each alternative are presented in the
following table.
Embankment Section
Concrete Dam Section
Spillway Section
Recreation Facility Relocation
•
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
(5—Foot)
(10—Foot)
$ 2,087,000
$
4,077,000
238,000
509,000
1,555,000
2,899,000
110,000
804,000
Field Cost
$ 3,990,000
$
8,289,000
Indirects
$ 1,210,000
$
2,511,000
Total Construction Cost
$ 5,200,000
$ 10,800,000
The field costs include a 25 percent allowance for contingencies.
The cost estimate for recreation facility replacement assume that all
facilities inundated by the increase in active conservation storage will be
relocated.
Between the top of active conservation and the spillway crest,
only permanent structures which are affected by the incremental increase
would be relocated. Permanent structures are considered to be toilets,
picnic shelters, camper service stations, etc.
Camper pads, picnic pads
and roadways were not included in the estimate.
Other Considerations
The existing inflow design flood (IDF) was developed in 1977 and does not
represent current probable maximum flood (PMF) methods and criteria. Based
on past experience of revising PMFs for other dams using the current
methods the magnitude of the revised PMF for Pueblo will probably exceed
If the PMF does increase significantly, the spillway
capacity and/or flood storage capacity will also need to be increased. The
design concepts proposed herein only consider the existing situation and do
the current IDF.
not anticipate the outcome of future development of increased design
floods.
following concerns will also need further evaluation
if future
Investigations are conducted.
1.
Analyze and/or model the performance of the spillway and
stilling
:in. The increased elevation of the crest
will cause greater flow
velocities at the downstream flip and difference trajec
tories into the
s:illing basin. The magnitude of this change must
be identified and
accounted for in future designs.
2.
Reanalyze the stresses in the concrete dam buttresses when
subjected to the increased reservoir levels. Tensile stress
es were
identified in the buttresses for certain loading conditions
in the original
analysis of the structure, and provisions were made
for these stresses. A
new analysis would be required to determine if those
provisions are still
adequate.
3.
Additional details will be required on raising the embank
ment in
:he vicinity of the Bessemer Ditch shaft struct
ure since the embankment
slope is already 2:1 on the upstream face. The additi
onal embankment loads
on the shaft structure will need to be analyzed to determ
ine whether the
structure can withstand the increased stresses.
4.
A freeboard analysis should be performed to determine if 6
feet
freeboard at the maximum water surface elevation is still
required for
the concrete portion of the dam.
5.
Small counterforts may be required on 'the downstream face
of the
new parapet wall to reduce stresses in the wall and
in the top of the dam.
6.
The formed drain in the concrete dam must be extended throug
h the
raised spillway surface. Other similar details of
the existing dam must be
examined to determine if additional modifications
are necessary.
7.
Extensive beds of bentonite underlie the left earth embankment.
:.::vement in the foundation occurred along these beds
during construction.
Studies then indicated that the left embankment was potent
ially-unstable,
and a stability berm was subsequently constructed along the downstream toe
of the embankment.
S.
Any modification which raises the water surface for long-term
s:orage or which adds weight to the embankment crest must consider the
effects of increased pore pressures and shear stresses on the embankment's
stability.
•••
.
El. 4030
Parapet Wall
Max. Water Surface
•
-El. 4024
E1. 4925
7
!
4
•
•
•••
•
$ •
•
•.•
t•-•
3:1
•slib
2.5:1
O.•
•••••••
••••
• • ••2 • •
•
.
•• •
•
•
••• •
FIGURE 1
Alternative 1 - El. 4930.0
Embankment Section for 5-Foot Increase
Parapet Wall.
Max. Water Surface
El. 4930
El. 4929
•r•
2:1
2:1
2.5:1%
.•
•
a
.
FIGURE 2
Alternative 2 — El. 4935.0
Embankment Section for 10-Foot Increase
•;.
El. 4930
New watert
ight parapot
wall.\
Max. Water Surface
El. 4924
El. 4925
Remove existing parapet wall
El. 4921
.•
•
'a
•
••••.-
43.
•
71'.11
••
•••...
6
FIGURE 3
Alternative 1 & 2 — El. 4930 (Shown)
Concrete Dam Section
Spillway
E Dam
••.
New Crest El. 4903.7
.r
4
•770;
,• •
;•
.
aD
.
FIGURE 4
Alternative I & 2— El. 4930 (Shown)
Spillway Section
TAKE
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Great Plains Region
EE
PRIDE IN________
AMER!CA=MEM=
cammisimaimmizne
ImeMENOXIMMENIEN
MEMEMEMMINERE
MOMS
El
P.O. Box 36900
Billings, Montana 69107-6900
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
JUN 21 19J0
GP-450
Mr. Frank Milenski
President, Catlin Canal Company
P.O. Box 352
Rocky Ford CO 81067
Subject:
Errata Sheets for 1990 Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado Annual
Operating Plan (Water Operations Report)
Dear Mr. Milenski:
During the review of the 1990 Annual Operating Plan for the Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project, it came to our attention additional information concerning the
operation of Ruedi Reservoir should have been included in the AOP. We have
made the necessary changes and are providing by this enclosure, four errata
sheets which need to be replaced in the AOP sent to you on April 19, 1990.
The necessary changes include pages 3 and 4, 7 and 8, 21 and 22, and graphs of
Twin Lakes Canal Company Storage and Twin Lakes Tunnel Discharge, found in the
Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company Exchange with Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project Water section.
If you have any questions concerning these changes, feel free to contact our
office.
Sincerely,
Roger K. Patterson
Regional Director
Enclosures 1
El
IV. REPORT ON OPERATIONS DURING WATER YEAR 1989
A.
Ruedi Reservoir
Ruedi Dam is located on the Fryingpan River on Colorado's western
slope. The reservoir provides replacement storage for out-of-priority
depletion by the Project. Additional storage water is available for
sale to meet irrigation and municipal and industrial water needs in
western Colorado.
The reservoir has a total capacity of 102,300 acre-feet. The spillway
on the right abutment is uncontrolled with an ogee-type crest and has a
total release capability of 5,500 ft3/s.
Storage in Ruedi Reservoir at the beginning of water year 1989
(September 30, 1988) was well below capacity at 87,760 acre-feet. On
October 1, the reservoir release was set at 110 ft3/s to accomplish
winter drawdown. This release rate was maintained until August 30 when
it was increased to 140 ft3/s. The maximum daily release occurred on
September 30 at 167 ft3/s. The maximum reservoir content reached during
the year was 97,380 acre-feet on August 6. Maximum inflow for the year
The inflow slowly declined to
of 410 ft3/s occurred on May 23.
approximately 20 ft3/s on September 30, 1989.
During water year 1989, reservoir releases were made under two contracts
for direct diversion and use and one contract for use by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and Colorado Water Conservation Board for
Endangered Fish instream flows. Releases were made to the West Divide
and Basalt Water Conservancy District in the amount of 3 acre-feet and
104 acre-feet respectively. A total of 10,000 acre-feet was released
by contract among the United States, Grand Valley Water Users
Association (GVWUA), and the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District. This
contract provided for the delivery of Ruedi Reservoir releases to the
Grand Valley Powerplant to benefit endangered fish habitat in the reach
of the Colorado River between GVWUA diversion dam and the Gunnison River
confluence referred to as the "15-mile reach". The contract releases
are shown in table 1.
Exhibits 1 and 2 show the precipitation and pan evaporation at Meredith.
Table 2 and exhibit 3 show the operations of Ruedi Reservoir during
water year 1989.
B.
West Slope Collection System
The Project imports during water year 1989, as measured at
Tunnel (Boustead Tunnel) outlet by the
Charles H. Boustead
Colorado Division of Water Resources, reduced by Busk-Ivanhoe imports
The
through Boustead Tunnel, were 36,170 acre-feet (see table 3).
was
July
April
through
April 1 forecast of available imports for
49,200 acre-feet.
3
Table 1
Water Year 1989
Ruedi Reservoir Releases
(Units = Acre-Feet) ,
Month
Basalt Water
West Divide
Conservancy Dist.
(Contract
(Contract
#2-07-70-W0547)
#2-07-70-W0546)
Grand Valley Water
Users & Orchard Mesa
Irrigation Dist.
(Contract
#9-07-40-R0900)
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
*Oct
0.56
1.17
1.13
_
22.40
43.58
38.35
243.28
5,714.28
4,042.44
Total
2.86
104.33
10,000.00
* Released in water year 1990.
The following minimum bypass requirements at the various diversion
points were used during the 1989 operation:
Minimum bypass
requirement
(ft /s)
Diversion point
Fryingpan River
South Fork
Chapman Gulch
Sawyer Lake Creek
Lily Pad Creek
Ivanhoe Creek
Middle Cunningham Creek
North Cunningham Creek
South Cunningham Creek
Mormon Creek
Hunter Creek
Midway Creek
No Name Creek
Carter Creek
North Fork Creek
Granite Creek
12
6
3
0
0
3
1
1
0
2
12
5
4
2
1
0
In addition to the minimum bypass requirements at each of these sites,
a minimum flow requirement must be met on the Fryingpan River at
Thomasville River gaging station as specified in the Operating
Principles. This minimum requirement is as follows: April - 100 ft3/s,
May - 150 ft3/s, June - 200 ft3/s, July - 100 ft3/s, August - 75 ft3/s,
and September - 70 ft3/s or the natural flow, whichever is less.
When it appears that these flows will not be met, the diversions into
the Project system are decreased or stopped, whichever is necessary to
meet the bypass requirements. The Hunter Creek System, which drains
into the Roaring Fork River, can continue diverting water into
Boustead Tunnel during these times.
Exhibit 4 shows the daily flows at the Thomasville River gaging
station and the average daily minimum flow requirements during the
period of diversions from the Fryingpan River.
C.
Project Diversions
The water year 1989 outlook (table 14, AOP, WY 1988-1989) used a
projected Project diversion of 36,200 acre-feet for the most probable
runoff condition. The March 1, April 1, and May 1 forecasts, based on
Soil Conservation Service snow course data, projected available
diversions of 46,000 acre-feet, 49,200 acre-feet, and 34,100 acre-feet,
respectively.
7
The actual diversion for water year 1989 was 36,520 acre-feet as
Of the
measured at the outlet portal of Boustead Tunnel.
was
acre-feet
36,520 acre-feet of water at Boustead Tunnel, 350
The
contract.
Busk-Ivanhoe, Inc., water transported for them under
maximum mean daily import through Boustead Tunnel was 604 ft3/s on
A senior call was placed on the Colorado River on
May 23, 1989.
Releases from Ruedi Reservoir were necessary to
July 19, 1989.
replace Project diversions on August 4, 1989, and for out of priority
Total volume of replacement water was
storage on July 19 and 20.
80 acre-feet (storage replacement of 53 acre-feet and diversion of
27 acre-feet).
The yearly total imports, the accumulated imports to the Arkansas River,
the water used for Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company exchange, and
the import water available for allocations by the Southeastern Colorado
The 18 years of
Water Conservancy District are shown on table 4.
accumulated imports total 800,300 acre-feet for an average of
44,460 acre-feet per year. A plot of the Boustead Tunnel imports during
water year 1989 is shown on exhibit 5.
The discharge records for all diversions in water year 1989 are shown in
appendix A.
D.
Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Company/Fryingpan Arkansas Project
Exchange
On October 1, the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company (Company)
began bypassing water into the Roaring Fork River drainage in exchange
for water in Twin Lakes. The exchange followed the operating criteria
as shown in appendix B. The total amount of the exchange at Twin Lakes
was 1,700 acre-feet. The Company's account in Twin Lakes was never at
maximum storage due to the low runoff and the high demands on storage.
The monthly summary of the exchange is also shown in appendix B along
with plots of the daily flows.
E. Turquoise Lake
On September 30, 1988, 127,900 acre-feet of water was in storage
Homestake Project maintained their storage near
in Turquoise Lake.
capacity throughout the year by meeting their demands from imports
through the Homestake Tunnel. Total imports from Homestake Tunnel were
26,770 acre-feet. In addition to the Homestake imports, Busk-Ivanhoe
the
of water through
acre-feet
approximately 3,680
imported
water
through
of
acre-feet
Carlton Tunnel throughout the year and 350
Boustead Tunnel (exhibit 6). The 4,030 acre-feet of imports of Busk-Ivanhoe
water was divided equally between the Pueblo Board of Water Works and
The Project imported 36,170 acre-feet of water
the City of Aurora.
through the Boustead Tunnel during water year 1989.
8
IV.
OPERATION PLAN FOR WATER YEAR 1990
A.
General
Three potential operations have been considered for available
facilities of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in conformity with
established operating criteria under assumed conditions of inflow. Two
of these represent operating conditions that would be experienced if
runoff during water year (WY) in 1990 is extremely high or low.
Divertable flows during W.Y. 1990 have a 1-in-10 chance of being greater
than the reasonable maximum and a 1-in-10 chance of being less than the
reasonable minimum.
Therefore, actual operations in 1989-1990
statistically have an 8-in-10 chance of falling between the two extremes.
The third potential operation represents most probable diversions and
operating conditions.
In considering potential operation plans, it was intended to provide the
necessary flexibility to change from one set of conditions to another.
Changing conditions will require adjustments to the proposed operation
plan. Forecasts of the April-July runoff will be initiated in February
1990 and continue during each succeeding month through May.
These
forecasts are based upon the.Soil Conservation Service's monthly snow
survey, most probable precipitation for the remainder of the season,
and historic runoff patterns.
The contract with Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
requires that by May 15 notification be given of the quantity of water
that will be available for sale to the district. This quantity is in
excess of the buildup of storage necessary for minimum pools and power
operation, evaporation, and transportation losses.
B.
Ruedi Reservoir
Ruedi Reservoir will be operated during 1989-1990 to optimize control
of spring runoff, recreational interests and downstream fishery
requirements.
This is an interim plan until a long-term market is
developed for that water. Short term sales may be made on a year-toyear basis as need develops.
1.
Inflow
will
Under
annual
inflow
most
be
conditions, the
probable
131,500 acre-feet. Under maximum and minimum probable conditions annual
inflow will be 197,800 and 83,800 acre-feet respectively.
2. Minimum Release
The fishery bypass requirements, as described in the qperating Principles,
are 39 fti/s from November through April and 110 fti/s from May through
October or inflow whichever is less.
21
3.
Reservoir Operation
The planned release from Ruedi Reservoir for October through April is
80 ft3/s which would draw the reservoir down to an elevation of
7733.3 feet by March 31, 1990. However, based upon the type of runoff
season indicated by monthly snowpack data, the outflow from the
To provide
reservoir and the target elevation will be adjusted.
maximum flood protection below the dam, the reservoir will be drawn
down by March 31, 1990, to a point where refilling would be assured
during the spring runoff. Estimates of probable inflow will be made
following the February 1, March 1, April 1, and May 1 snow forecasts.
Following this, the drawdown will be adjusted accordingly.
West Slope recreation interests requested that the reservoir water level
not be drawn down below elevation 7706.0 (53,000 acre-feet), which is
The
2.0 feet above the bottom of the Forest Service boat ramp.
reservoir would fill by the first of July to provide optimum recreational
benefits during the summer months. This request will be honored until
long term contracts can be developed for sale of storage water.
After July 1, operating plans call for maintaining the reservoir at
elevation 7764.0 (2.0 feet below the spillway crest) until August 1. Then,
only inflow and short term contracted deliveries will be passed during
the month of August. A 10,000 acre-feet release for endangered fish on
the Colorado River is anticipated under a lease agreement between the
U.S. and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Colorado Division
of Wildlife has requested that the outflow be maintained at about 100
ft3/s during September to optimize the downstream fishery. These flows
will be maintained under normal conditions. If conditions warrant, the
outflow during these months may be adjusted to conserve water.
If water is sold to entities downstream, the outflow from the reservoir
will' be adjusted to the situation at the time of delivery and will be
included in the overall operation.
Table 13 and exhibit 21 show the
Reservoir during water year 1990.
C.
anticipated
operation
of
Ruedi
West Slope Collection System
In 1990, there will be 16 diversion points on the •west slope
This year there is capability to
collection system in operation.
exchange a maximum of 3,000 acre-feet of water with the Twin Lakes
The water is to be delivered to the
Reservoir and Canal Company.
company at Twin Lakes in exchange for the company making equivalent
releases from the headwaters of the Roaring Fork River which would
otherwise be diverted through such Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal
Company collection and diversion system.
The Hunter system portion of the west slope collection system will be in
operation to divert approximately 8,000 acre-feet of water. Of this, up
22
MIR
MIN
1E11
1111111
111111
NMI
IIIIII
1111111
Win
1111111
11E1
111111
111111
111111
11111111
Water Year 1989 Actual Operations
Twin Lakes Canal Company Storage
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
Fryingpan—Arkansas Project
Maximum 'Contract Storage - 54,452 AF
tr)
C.)
0
LU
0
1
0
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
1101
Water Year 1989 Actual Operations
Twin Lakes Tunnet Discharge
U. S. Bureau of Peclamafion
Fryingpan--Arkansas Projet
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL