L:.662

@rn1P&oo1rirn~1r @w ,rnarn o~,rrnooo®oo
INFORMATION SERVICE

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
For Release OCTOBER 29, 1959
RECLAfvlATION REPORTS ON RDEDI DAM AND RESERVOIR, COLORADO
---.-- .The Bure.au of

e.0.lam.ation report on the prnposed Rued_i J)am and Reservoir on

the Fryingpan River near Basalt, Colorado, has been forwarded to the interested
States and Federal agencies for comment in accordance with the Flood Control Act
nf 1944, the Department of the Interit',r announced today.

'

Ruedi Dam is a potential feature of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado,
Dffered as a substitute for the controversial Aspen Dam and Reservoir, originally
proposed for construction on the Roaring Fork River.

Both streams are tributaries

0f the Col~rado River.
Commissioner of Reclamation Floyd E. Dominy said the proposed dam would be a
270-foot earthfill structure which would create a 100,000 acre-foot reser!iTOir
covering an area of only 1,000 acres. The damsite is about 14 miles east of
Basalt, and about a quarter of a mile below the confluence of Ruedi Creek with the
Fryingpan River.
The preliminary cost estimate, based upon January 1959 prices, is $12,831,000.
Completion of the dam and reservoir would require about six years, and would
include acquisition of about 1 1 500 acres of land, clearing of 600 acres of medium
timber, and relocation of about
miles of gravel-surfaced Colorado State Highway
104, which now traverses the reservoir area.

?t

The cost of the originally proposed 28,000-acre-foot Aspen Dam and Reservoir
was estimated at $7,600,000. Inasmuch as the Ruedi Dam and Reservoir will perform
the same replacement storage function, that amount is assigned as a FryingpanArkansas Project cost, leaving $5,231,000 to be allocated among multiple-purpose
uses on the western slope of the Colorado Rockies.
The Bureau report proposes the following tentative allocation of costs assignable to western slope uses: Reimbursable--municipal and industrial water,
$3,300,700; nonreimbursable--fl6od control, $117,500; fish and wildlife,
$1,757,800; and recreation, $55 1 000.

 Annual benefits rwer a lOO-y0ar perfod were estimated at $678, 500 and annue.l
costs at $16Aj300, resulting in an extremely favorable ratio of benefits t o costs
of J. 57 to 1.
Major economic benefit to west slnpe interests would be derived fr om a regulated supply of 70 9 000 acre,-feet of water in excess of requirements for do·vmstream
vested rights, fish propagatioi'l, fln od control a.."'ld Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
diversinns. The report estimated that this supply from Ruedi Reservoir, supplemented with water from other potential storage sites in the basin, would be
sufficient to meet future requirements f or municipal and industrial watGr expected
to arise from commercial oil shale development in Western Colorado.
A Colorado Hater Coi'ls2rvation Board study on water requirements f or oil shale
or the pe~t\'.ld- 1960.;;;l~7,--was made a parL of Lhe-repor • Thh, study, by the- BenvBr
enginaering firm of Cameron and Jones, Inc., recommended planning for a water
supply nf 250~000 acre-feet per year by 1975 to meet municipal and industrial
development associated with expected commercial shale oil production in the
Rifle-Debeque area.

,

The State of Colorado would be expected to furnish reasonable assurance as to
the future repayment of c0sts allocated to this deferred municipal and industrial
water supply fr om the Ruedi Reservoir which would have to be repaid with interest
under provisiono of the Water Supply Act of 1958.
Although the reach of Fryingpan River, which would be inundated by the
reservoir now supports an important trout fishery~ the net effect of project
operation will be beneficial to fish, the report indicated. The stacilized
releases fr om the dam will improve fish habitat downstream, and the reservoir will
provide g~eater fishing opportunities than the reach of the natural streaJJ.
involved. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates an annual project benefit of
$172,000 because of the enhancement of the fishery •
.Annual banefits of $80,000
Reservoir, which is expected to
y
pers-, .-picnickers, hikers,
of the reservoir for public use
Forest Service,

also will accrue from recreational use of Ruedi
attract annually some 50,000 visitor-days of use
f4-shermen -and boating enthusiasts. Developmentwould be accomplished in cooperation with the

Operation of the reservoir for flood control, in conjun ction with snow- mel t
runoff forecasts, would afford virtually complete control of snow-melt floods in
the watershed and return annual benefits of about $11,500.
A report summarizing investigations ms.de by the Colorado R.i ver Hater Cm'lservation District for serving the Cattle Creek and Mt . Sopris lands from Ruedi Re servo ir was appended to the report, but the Bureau has not made sufficient investigations to recommend any specific irrigation plans.
The Commissioner found the proposed Ruedi project feasible and recomme~ded
that it be author ized as ai.'l integral feature of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project .

2

 .-.

The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was first reported to the Congress in 1953.
The project involves collection of surplus waters on the two-mile-high watershed
of the Fryingpan River ann transporting it by a 6ix-mile-long tu:.'lllel through the
mountains at the 10,000-foot level to augment the water supply in the Arka..~sas
River Valley in Colorado. The project would supply supplemental water to about
322,000 acres ~f irrigated land east 0f Pueblo, municipal water supplies for such
cities as Pueblo, Colorado Springs, La Junta, and Lamar, Colorado, and would
generate ovsr 500,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy annually in its long trip down
the Arkansas Valley to Pueblo. Several bills to authorize the proj~ct have been
before the Congress, the latest based on the Ruedi Report and the new operating
principles, being introduced just before adjournment of the past session.
xxx

--~-- - - - -

3