Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.
For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at [email protected] and include the phrase
“Digital Documents” in your subject heading.
To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu
Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System
University of Wyoming, Dept 3943 1000 E University Avenue
Laramie, WY 82071
Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071
Phone: (307) 766-6651 Fax: (307) 766-3785
Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission
(http://wwdc.state.wy.us)
51.1248 (Gooseberry Creek) D
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR FORMATION OF
GOOSEBERRY CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT GOOSEBERRY CREEK
WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Apri 1 16, 1984
Submitted to:
Gooseberry Creek Water Users Worland, Wyoming
and Wyoming State Engineer
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
Submitted by:
Western Water Consultants, Inc. 410 Grand Avenue - Suite 213
Laramie, Wyoming 82070
Subconsultants:
International Engineering Company Denver, Colorado
Western Research Corporation Laramie, Wyoming
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Gooseberry Creek watershed is an area chroni ca lly short of
water for beneficial irrigation. The need for amelioration of this
shortage has been recognized for many years. In the 1930's the State of
Wyoming through its State Planning Board prepared the first study
looking at possible water development in the basin. This study
recommended diversion of water from Wood River and supplemental storage
in the Gooseberry Creek watershed. Subsequent to their report which was
published in 1938, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR), and local water users have explored ways of
providing supplemental water supplies for the area. These studies were
summarized in a report by the SCS in 1981.
In 1981, the Wyoming Legislature, as part of the Governor's Water
Development program, authorized a Level I Reconnaissance study of the
hydro logy and water ri ghts wi th in the Gooseberry Creek Wa tershed. The
report from the Level I study (Rice, 1983) indicated that there was
enough of a potential for development that the 1983 Legislature autho
rized the preparation of a Level II Feasibility study for water develop
ment in the Gooseberry Creek area. The Wyoming Water Development
Commission contracted with Western Water Consultants, Inc. (WWC) to
accomplish the Level II investigation. WWC subcontracted with
International Engineering Company (IECo) to assist on the designs and
cost estimates, and with Western Research Corporation (WRC) for economic
and financial analyses. The study has been directed and coordinated by
Paul A. Rechard, P.E. & L.S. of WWC. Those professionals who worked on
1
the project included: Pat Tyrrell, E.LT., Greg Schaefer, P.E., John
Ahern and Joe Grabowski of WWC, Ralph Waddington, P.E., Richard Golden,
P.E., Jill Piatt, E.LT., John Imberlake, E.I.T., and Robert Ferrese,
P.E., of IECo, and Gary Watts, Jim Jacobs, and Bob Carver of WRC.
The cooperation and assistance of the Gooseberry Creek Water Users
Steering Committee, especially Cheryl and Fred Feraud, Alma and Harley
Bower, and High Baird; the Division Superintendent of Water Division 3,
Craig Cooper; and the staff and members of the Water Development
Commission, especially Lewis Freudenthal, Willard Rhoads, and John
Jackson, are gratefully acknowledged.
The Gooseberry Creek water users are in the process of forming an
Irrigation district for purposes of managing the project and for con
tracting with the State. This report is the preliminary engineering
report on the feasibility of the project required by statute (W.S.
41-7-273) prior to the district formation. More detailed discussion is
presented in the II Fi na 1 Report Leve 1 I I Feas i bi 1 i ty Report Gooseberry
Creek Water Deve 1 opment Project" dated February 15, 1984. Thi s report
is abstracted from that report.
2
1.0 Setting
CHAPTER II
PROJECT AREA
Gooseberry Creek watershed is located in portions of Hot Springs,
Park, and Washakie Counties, in northwestern Wyoming (Figure II-I).
Gooseberry Creek flows in an easterly direction from its headwaters in
the foothills of the Absaroka Mountain Range in the southwest portion of
the Big Horn River Basin to its junction with the Big Horn River about
nine miles southwest of Worland. The Gooseberry Creek watershed is
approximately 60 miles long and varies in width from 3 to 14 miles. The
elevation ranges from about 10,400 feet near Cottonwood Peak at the
upper end 0 f the waters hed to abou t 4,200 feet at the confl uence of
Gooseberry Creek with the Big Horn River near Neiber. Annual precipita
tion is low, averaging approximately 8 to 10 inches over much of the
watershed, except in the upper portion where it is estimated to be close
to 30 inches. In the ; rri ga ted areas of the watershed, the grow; ng
season is quite favorable, averaging about 210 days or from April
through October.
The reported average annual precipitation at Worland is 7.76
inches, with 64 percent (4.95 inches) occurring during the major growing
months of April through August. Thus, the success of intensive crop
production in the Basin is dependent upon supplemental moisture via
i rri ga t ion.
There are approximately 232,300 acres (363 square miles) in the
Gooseberry Creek watershed, of which about 4,500 acres are presently
irrigated. Landowners in the watershed hold adjudicated water rights
3
~.T'
If') (7
)
,;.
. a:: z
.' r:-
~
.. '
Ch ~
ti ,. r : ....
,~
i~! •
;: '-a-..-.:.:"..-.~.: u ... :
.
.. It)
0-Ii ;1 ~., ~~f
::; ~ ..!'4
I t
J
"
~ ,
~* i
. ....
.L
,
....
, :,
~ ...
.. 'i.'~'
. '':'
~ t.
I .:~.{. "
.,: !
..... -
:."
...
~: -;
~;L
<' ,
j' f l ') ,
.",.
' .
~~
, "
<" 't
(\oJ
..., :
r ~
Q
. I
-". "
0:'
, . ~ "'1'
,I
" .. -i
. . .£
.'
,.
., --. ...
I-,~ ~
c i
"<
.' (:
.:, .~
,
,! t
II')
t:: "
: ::
:., t· ~ .'
::
'! .~
~ r"
o •
... .: ,1T.:
. . ~
: . .:J. li. r
" ." ........
~ "
" t",
., ,.
.f\· ~
\
I .. ~ft..
! • .... o
l~·
'l
~
''t ..... "'
ON
Y1Y
OM
""';"J
..J .• ;
• <II(
~. u
"_
crt
".... \
'# 1 "
."
.'
... i
I· -
I-.. -.
U
.. .. -I
.;: w
!
• ..., I'
Ii: 0
-It;: ~II
a. a:: a;
-
<to... \oi
:E~
~ w
!l
Zw
~
00
:
... --U
:::J
t-~ ... tn
<t
"'t)~ 4
>_
0
U>-~
00
:
...Jo: W
m
W
1-1.1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
c::::t (f)
0 0 (!)
for about 4,000 acres of additional land which is not currently
irrigated due to water shortages.
The major economic activity in the Gooseberry Creek watershed is
cow-calf, cow-yearling, a'nd sheep ranching operations. These ranching
operations utilize native rangeland which is supplemented by irrigated
pasture and irrigated land producing hay, grain, and silage for winter
feed.
The Big Horn Basi n surroundi ng Gooseberry Creek watershed is a
major cash-crop area of Wyoming. With the aid of supplemental irriga
tion, sugar beets, malt barley, alfalfa, feed barley, corn for silage or
grain and dry beans are grown. These crops also serve as inputs into
the various livestock activities from cattle ranches to feeding opera
tions for cattle, sheep, and swine. These livestock operations provide
a demand for intensively grown feedstuffs, and Worland, the county seat
for Washakie County, provides a market for agricultural products grown
in the Gooseberry watershed and the surrounding area. Wyoming Highway
431 pas ses eas t-wes t through the center of the lower portion of the
watershed, providing an all-weather farm-to-market road that joins U.S.
Highway 20 nine miles southwest of Worland and State Highway 120 thirty
miles west of Neiber.
2.0 Irrigated Lands
Aerial photographs taken in 1979 and enlarged to a scale of four
inches per mile were obtained from the SCS office in Worland to check
the cu rrent ; rr; ga ted ac reage fi gure. From these recent a nd en 1 a rged
photos, a total of 4,478 acres, were identified as having received
; rri ga ti on water ; n recent years. About 482 acres havi ng va 1 i d water
5
rights from Gooseberry Creek under the Blake-Denton Ditch are currently
being served by pumping from the Bluff Canal. A listing of the lands
currently receiving water from Gooseberry Creek is given in Table II-I.
It should be noted that this list does not include lands irrigated by
water diverted from tributaries or 205 acres with water rights above the
upper reservoir site on Gooseberry Creek. Those lands currently being
irrigated are shown by cross hatching on Plate I.
3.0 Water Rights
There are more lands along Gooseberry Creek which have valid water
rights than are currently being irrigated. This situation is similar to
many other stream systems in Wyoming. Table 11-1 lists in downstream
order the va 1 i d wa ter ri ghts by di tch, appropri ator, current owner,
permit number, priority date, and acreage of land entitled to receive
wa ter from Gooseberry Creek (Boa rd of Contro 1, 1978). The tab 1 e does
not 1 i st 1 ands wi th ri ghts from tri butari es or 1 ands above the upper
reservoir site on Gooseberry Creek. The location of lands having valid
water rights are shown on Plate 1 with symbols to indicate the various
water rights and priorities. Current land ownership is also indicated
on Pl ate 1.
4.0 Cropping Patterns
The water and related land resource problems in the Gooseberry
Creek watershed include acute shortages of irrigation water and some in
frequent flood problems. Of the approximately 8,290 acres in the study
area with adjudicated water rights, 3,996 acres are irrigated from
6
Table II-I. Irrigation Ditches on Gooseberry Creek with Water Right Information and Current Irrigated Acreage (listed in downstream order).
Total Current Permi t Priority Irrigated Total Acreage
No. Ditch Name Aeeroeriator land Owner No. Date Acreage w/Water Rights
McCoy " Major Hl LE. Renner t- Co. Clifton Renner 2282 1899 115 95
2 Fishhook J.H. Doores larson Ranch Co. 3717 1902 27 60
3 Dickie #1 loU. Sheep Co. loU. Sheep Co. TERR 1887 34 41
4 Dickie 112 loU. Sheep Co. loU. Sheep Co. TERR 1884 10 18.5
5 Dickie 113 (from Enos Cr.) L.U. Sheep Co. loU. Sheep Co. TERR 1882 64 43.9
6 Dickie #4 L. U. Sheep Co. L.U. Sheep Co. TERR 1888 31 48
'" 7 Dickie #5 L.U. Sheep Co. loU. Sheep Co. TERR 1888 36 33
8 Dickie 116 loU. Sheep Co. loU. Sheep Co. TERR 1888 74 43
9 Sun Ell a M. Moon Markovsky 2442 1900 124 108 Lee A. Moon Markovsky 5052E 1936 37 90 Ell a M. Moon Markovsky 3688E 1916 28 54 Lee Moon Markovsky 5053E 1936 24 105
SUN DITCH TOTAL : ill = ill
10 Star Ella M. Moon Mart<ovsky 3689£ 1916 18 40 Ell a M. Moon Markovsky 3130 1901 0 50 Ella M. Moon Markovsky 4107£ 1920 31 37.7
STAR DITCH TOTAL :::49 : UI.I
11 Quartz #1 G.W. Hillberry Baird & Sons 2443 1900 100 70 QUARTZ #l DITCH TOTAL '" TOO =70
Table 11-l. Irrigation Ditches on Gooseber-ry Creek with Water Right Information and Current Irrigated Acreage (listrd in downstream order) (continued).
Total Current Permi t Priority I rri gated Total Acreage
No. Di tch Name AEproeriator Land Owner No. Date Acreage w/Water Rights
12 Quartz 112 tLG. Hi Ilberry Hi llberry Cattle Co. 2443 1900 76 92 (ENL Quartz) H.G. Hillberry Hi llberry (att Ie Co. 756£ 1901 0 133
Gertrude Hillberry IIi 11 berry Cattle Co. 1338E 1905 0 123 Gertrude Hillberry Baird & Sons 1338E 1905 68 62
QUARTZ 112 OITCH TOTAL 144 ill
13 Murphy Robel't Rankine, et al. Rankine Bros. Inc. 8950 1907 214 156 Robert H. Baird Hillberry Cattle Co. 8950 1907 0 136 Robert H. Baird Rankine Bros. Inc. 8950 1907 0 90
MURPHY DITCH TOTAL m 382
14 Morton Harry Hil1berry Clara Hi 11 berry 8747 1908 93 160
CO H.G. Hi llberry Clara Hillberry 15383 1919 122 116
MORTON DITCH TOTAL ill =m
15 Perkins M.B. Perkins Rankine Bros. Inc. 3600 1901 88 163 M.B. Perkins Jay Mathews 3600 1901 127 120 Eric Carlson Rankine Bros. Inc. 1337E 1905 109 161 Edna C. Carlson, et a 1 . Rankine Bros. Inc. 3909E 1918 30 40
PERKINS DITCH TOTAL 354 484
16 Homestead M.W. Leighton Bai rd Cattle Co. 7353 1903 74 100 John McGregor Ba i rd Cattle Co. 2186E 1909 75 150
HOMESTEAD DITCH TOTAL ill :: 150
17 Steele Wi 11 iam O. Steele C1 ara Hillberry 7209 1906 83 121 Eva n Morton Clara Hill berry 9056 1909 75 142
STEELE DITCH TOTAL ",ill = ill
18 Holder Fred Shryack Jay Mathews 9202 1909 82 162 John l. Ba i rd Jay Mathews 2258£ 1910 108 120 Gust Peterson Dorothie Buckle 3240E 1915 0 13.5 Fred Shryack Dorothie Buckle 3652E 1916 50 26.5 Andrew Donohue Dorothie Buckle 3652E 1916 16 15.5 Andrew Donohue John Feraud 3652E 1916 70 49.0
HOLDER DITCH TOTAL : ill = 18b.5
..0
Table 11-1. Irr'igdtion Uitclles on Gooseberl'y Creek with Water Riyht inforllIation and CUITcnt Irrig,1ted I\creage (listed in downstream order) (continued).
No. Ditch Name
19 Peterson
20 Holly and Niccolls
Ho 11 a nd
22 11a ha n
23 Sunnyside - South Line
24 Sunnyside - North Line
Appropriator Current Land Owner
Gust Peterson Oorothie Buckle Mathilde Bechtold Wortham Oorothie Buckle
Charles Niccolls C. H. N i ceo 11 s Gavin H. Leiper Jacob B. Miller J.B. Miller
Nels Jacobsen Nels Jacobsen Robert Earl Holland Albert Holland Robert Earl Holland
Charles W. Mahan Charles W. Mahan Thomas Williams J.B. Miller
Flo Adam E.E. Wortham, et al. A.A. Hand, et al. E.B. Johnston George W. Wortham Hand Bros. S.A. Wortham
E.E. Wortham, et al. E.E. Wortham, et a1. George W. Wortham E. B. Johns ton W.C. Denton
John Feraud John Feraud Fred Feraud Fred Feraud John Feraud
Albert Holland Fred Feraud Albert Holland Albert Holland Albert Holland
Albert Holland Fred Feraud Albert Holland Fred Feraud
Elmer Nelson, et al. Kreg Lomba rd Albert Holland Woodrow Bain Jake De110s Jake Dellos Elmer Nelson, et al.
Kreg Lombard Leon Toyne Jake De 11 os Woodrow Bain Leon Tayne
Permi t No.
Pri ority Date
Total Irrigated I\creage
13353 1915 0 3902E 1918 0
7208 2331E 2331E 2331E 3975E
HOLL Y AND
2331E 2331E 2331E 2331E 15093
9749 9749 3218E 3974E
PETERSON DITCH TOTAL =0
1906 1906 1906 1906 1919
NICCOLLS DITCH
1906 1906 1906 1906 1918
TOTAL
HOLLAND DITCH TOTAL
179 46 73 78 22
398
31 o
83 76
108 m
1909 114 1909 18 1914 0 1919 0
MAHAN DITCH TOTAL ~
7732 1907 0 7732 1907 59 2185E 1909 0 2185E 1909 0 2185E 1909 232 3267E 1915 60 3267E 1915 0
SUNNYS I DE - SOUTH LI NE D ITCH TOTAL 151
7732 1907 40 7732 1907 62 7732 1907 0 7732 1907 0 7732 1907 47
SUNNYSIDE NORTH LINE DITCH TOTI\L 149
Total Acreac w/Water Rigi
95.2 29
124.2
273 139 118 65 11
606
106 32
135 142 87
m
232 27
146 35
= 440
134 117 98
143 312.5 295.5
75 TIT5"
198 134 147 147 136 m
Tablf! ll-1. Irrigdtion Ditches on Gooseberr-y Creek with Water Right Information dnd Current Irrigated Acreage (listed in downstream order) (continued).
No. Ditch Name
25 Toyne
26 Warren
27 Blake - Denton
28 Neiber
29 ENL Gooseberry #1
Appropriator
E.B. Johnson
S.A. Wortham S.A. Wortham Elma Gi 1 brea th Ethel Denton Ethel Denton George Avery Flo Adam
Mary M. Neiber
Mary M. Neiber
Current Land Owner
Woodrow Bain
Elmer Nelson Larry Johnson Harley Bower Harley Bower Elmer Nelson, et a1. Elmer Nelson, et al. Elmer Nelson, et a1.
Vince Picard
Wagon Hammer land & Livestock! Phillip Schmeltzer! Vince Picard
Note: The lands irrigated by the Perkins Ditch and downstream are below 5000' in elevation
Total Permit Priority Irrigated Total Acreag{
No~. ________ ~O~a~t~e ________ A~c_re~a~9~e ________ w~/_W~a~te~r __ R~i~gh~l
7734 1906
7733 1906 7733 1906 7733 1906 7733 1906 7733 1906 7733 1906 7733 1906 BLAKE DENTON DITCH TOTAL
1495 1897
1795E 1907
TOTAL
220
0 117 132 61
117 35
155 ill
0
4,478
251
39 177 144 75
145 83
264 ~
13
101
8,289.8
Gooseberry Creek in a normal year, and only about 482 additional acres
have a full-season i rri gati on water supply by pumping from the Bl uff
Canal.
Agri cu 1 tura 1 producers i rri ga ti ng from Gooseberry Creek genera lly
begin irrigating in late February or early March. When they begin is
not a function of optimal management strategy but, rather, a function of
when water begins flowing in Gooseberry Creek. Some operators feel this
pract ice 1 eads to oversaturati ng some of the soi 1 s, but attempti ng to
arrive at optimal irrigation practices is very difficult when facing
uncertain water supplies. In a normal year, about 40 percent of the
operators run out of irrigation water in mid-June. In a "good" year,
irrigation ceases in the first week of July for these same producers.
Individual water uses face earlier or later shortages depending upon the
priority date of their water right and their location on the stream.
Depending upon the climatic conditions for a given year, water is
sometimes available in the fall, although the salinity of this late
Because of the acute water shortages facing the majority of irri
gators, intensive irrigation crop management strategies are not
routinely practiced. The predominant crop grown along Gooseberry Creek
is an alfalfa-grass hay mixture (68 percent). Feed grains (barley and
oats) are the second-most prevalent crop, with the remaining acres
mostly in irrigated pasture and corn. Current yields of all these crops
are substantially below genetic potential due to water shortages.
11
5.0 Irrigation Water Requirements
In 1970, the Wyoming Water Planning Program and the Wyoming Water
Resources Research Institute published a comprehensive report on
irrigation water requirements in Wyoming (Trelease, et al., 1970). The
technique used for that report was the Blaney-Criddle method for estima
ting crop consumptive use and a procedure developed by the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation for estimating rainfall effective for satisfying consump
tive use requirements. Table 11-2 presents the data and computations
for estimating irrigation water requirements for ttie Gooseberry Creek
area from Trelease, et ale (1970).
6.0 Streamflow Records and Estimates
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operated streamflow gaging
stations on Gooseberry Creek at various locations for various periods of
time. The longest record on Gooseberry Creek was at Dickie (USGS
Station no. 06265800), which was operated from 1958 to 1978. Unfortu
nately, the station was discontinued after the 1978 water year, thus,
there are no data for the most recent dry year (1982) nor for the most
recent wet year (1983).
For purposes of developing an operation model for Gooseberry Creek,
it was felt that a reasonable estimate of long-term streamflow would
require about 30 years of data based on the coefficient of variation for
the years of data available. The Dickie gage was operated for the
period 1958 to 1978, a period of 21 years. It was important to the
study to include flow information for the early 1950's, which were years
of below average streamflow in the area, so the study period chosen was
1950-1978, a period of 29 years.
12
Table 11-2. Consumptive Use and Irrigation Requirements for Various Crops Grown near Worland. Wyoming (from Trelease. et al.. 1970).
latitude 43.38 Longitude 108.13 Elevation 4,327
Mean I~ean Consumptive Monthly Daytime Consumptive Monthly Effect ive Irrigation
Month Tempera ture Hours factor Coeffi ci ent Use Ra i nfa 11 Ra infa 11 Re(Uirement (t) (~) (f) (k) (CU) (R) (RE) CU-RE}
AHal fa Apri 1 46 9.04 4.16 .57 2.38 1.66 1. 55 .B3 May 56 10.23 5.73 .83 4.76 1. 99 1.85 2.92 June 64 10.36 6.64 .98 6.50 1. 69 1. 58 4.93 July 72 10.48 7.55 1.02 7.70 .68 .65 7.06 August 70 8.67 6.07 .93 5.65 .59 .57 5.09 September 60 8.41 5.05 .74 3.74 1. 00 .95 2.79 October 48 7.65 3.68 .49 1.80 .98 .94 9.87 SEASONAL TOTAL 32.51 8."S9 24.49
Beans May 56 10.23 5.73 .50 1.85 1. 99 1.85 .01 June 64 10.36 6.64 .79 5.24 1. 69 1. 58 3.67 July 72 10.48 7.55 .91 6.87 .68 .65 6.23 August 70 9.67 6.77 .62 4.20 .59 .57 3.64
~ SEASONAL TOTAL T8.TI 4.95 n:-;; w
Corn May 56 10.23 5.73 .49 2.81 1. 99 1.85 .97 June 64 10.36 6.64 .74 4.91 1. 69 1. 358 3.34 July 72 10.48 7.55 .96 7.25 .6B .65 6.60 August 70 9.67 6.77 .98 6.64 .59 .57 6.08 September 60 8.41 5.05 .84 4.24 1.00 .95 3.29 SEASONAL TOTAL ~ ;-:g; '2Q."28
Grass, Hay, and Pasture Apri 1 46 9.04 4.16 .55 2.29 1.66 1.55 .75 May 56 10.23 5.73 .78 4.47 1. 99 1.85 2.63 June 64 10.36 6.64 .92 6.10 1. 69 1. 58 4.53 July 72 10.48 7.55 .95 7.17 .68 .65 6.53 August 70 9.67 6.77 .87 5.89 .59 .57 5.33 September 60 8.41 5.05 .70 3.54 1.00 .95 2.59 Oc tober 48 7.65 3.68 .48 1.77 .98 .94 .84 SEASONAL TOTAL 3l.23 8.59 ~
Potatoes May 56 10.23 5.73 .46 .94 1. 99 1.85 .00 June 64 10.36 6.64 .66 4.38 1. 45 1. 69 2.81 July 72 10.48 7.55 .80 6.04 .68 .65 5.40 August 70 9.67 6.77 .83 5.62 .59 .57 5.06 September 60 8.41 5.05 .69 3.49 1.00 .95 2.54 SEASONAL TOTAL 20.47 5.71 15.81
Tah 1 e I 1- C. Consumptive Use and Irrigation Requirements for Various Crops Grown near Worland, Wyoming (from Trelease, et a 1 .• 1970) (continued).
Latitude 43.38 Longitude 108. 13 Elevation 4,327
Mean Mean Consumptive Monthly Oayt ime Consumptive Monthly Effective Irrigation
Month Temperature Hours Factor Coefficient Use Rainfall Rainfall Requirement (t) (~) (f) (k) (CU) (R) (RE) (CU-RE)
Sma 11 Gra in March 35 8.29 2.91 .45 .43 .68 .65 .00 Apri 1 46 9.04 4.16 .64 2.67 1. 66 1. 55 1.12 May 56 10.23 5.73 .95 5.45 1. 99 1.85 3.61 June 64 10.36 6.64 .95 6.30 1. 69 1. 58 4.73 July 72 10.48 7.55 .70 5.29 .68 .65 4.64 SEASONAL TOTAL "21f.14 b.IO T4.TI.i
Sugar Beets Apri 1 46 9.04 4.16 .42 .88 1.66 1. 55 .00 ~'ay 56 10.23 5.73 .54 3.10 1. 99 1.85 1.26 June 64 10.36 6.64 .80 5.31 1. 69 1. 58 3.74
....... July 72 10.48 7.55 .91 6.87 .68 .65 6.23
.po. August 70 8.67 6.77 .84 5.69 .59 .57 5.13 September 60 8.41 5.05 .64 3.23 1.00 .95 2.28 October 48 7.65 3.68 .47 .56 .98 .94 .26 SEASONAL TOTAL ~ ~ T8."9U
Regression analyses were run on data for nearby stations which have
drainage basins with reasonably comparable hydrologic similarity to the
Gooseberry Creek watershed. It was found that the best relationship was
obtained with the North Fork of Owl Creek near Anchor, Wyoming so that
station was used to estimate flows of Gooseberry Creek at Dickie for
years 1950 through 1957. The recorded and estimated monthly and annual
s treamfl ow data for Gooseberry Creek at Di cki e for the peri od 1950 to
1978 are shown in Table 11-3.
7.0 Reservoir Evaporation Rates
Water surface evaporation was estimated using evaporation rate data
deve loped by Lewi s (1978). The gross reservoi r evaporat i on as deter
mined from Lewis was corrected using precipitation estimates from the
Level I study (Rice, 1983). The estimates of net evaporation used for
this study are given in Table 11-4.
8.0 Gooseberry Creek Digital Simulation Models
WWC developed a digital simulation model of Gooseberry Creek using
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation "OPSTUDY" as a base. The model simulates
the operation of Gooseberry Creek from the upper reservoir site to the
mouth. Each diversion and existing reservoir on Gooseberry Creek is
entered into the model and an accounting of diversions and return flows
is made. The base opera t i on reproduces the flows in the creek and
diversion to ditches as though the current level of irrigated land
existed each year during the 29-year study period. A schematic diagram
of Gooseberry Creek showing relative locations of diversion ditches,
tributaries, and existing reservoirs is shown on Figure 11-2.
15
Table 11-3. "'onthly and Annual Flow, Gooseberry Creek at Dickie, Wyoming. USGS Station No. 06265800.
STATION LOCATION NEl Sec. 32. T.S7 N •• R.99 W. DRAINAGE AREA 95 S9. mL QUANTITIES IN acre-Teet
Yeilr Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. A2ri 1 Mal June Ju1l Aug. Se~t. Total
1950* 320 310 110 40 450 250 950 1510 1470 2120 300 820 8,650 1951* 880 260 170 40 70 230 1070 1550 1230 1990 260 260 8,010 1952* 450 390 130 40 60 440 6080 3040 2250 1530 530 140 15,080 ]953* 200 200 80 90 150 200 690 1460 2460 830 230 160 6,750 1954* 170 250 230 210 260 Uo 1400 1380 270 90 130 40 4,560
1955* 110 100 70 40 40 80 190 950 610 430 90 120 2,830 1956* 80 100 150 90 60 140 980 1830 860 270 170 100 4,830 1957* 130 110 90 50 50 530 730 3390 7180 4830 700 400 18.190 1958 320 359 272 92 180 698 1496 4108 2208 1444 933 323 12.433 1959 265 354 260 61 16 254 740 1482 839 259 76 57 4,724
1960 216 170 55 38 52 122 522 878 404 122 80 78 2,138 1961 168 113 40 17 32 125 361 769 1613 156 29 652 4,073 1962 432 383 127 148 268 679 3021 2366 2305 1033 536 400 11 ,697 1963 275 231 171 83 134 452 188 2202 6115 1190 450 369 12,459 1964 269 254 162 194 168 299 775 3769 5278 1050 317 243 12,777
...... 0) 1965 257 208 134 164 142 201 666 1843 2934 992 459 450 8,449
1966 388 251 108 83 29 76 412 797 229 60 27 135 2,595 1967 203 223 168 132 83 361 441 2292 8398 2097 587 416 15,400 1968 304 277 280 255 276 386 533 1888 5343 1051 745 498 11.836 1969 388 193 118 58 117 197 668 914 1592 678 133 115 5,170
1970 183 156 82 25 92 150 663 3404 2231 594 122 241 7,943 1971 196 188 84 29 84 168 641 4019 3550 449 186 269 9.863 1972 498 502 184 174 1002 1139 459 2627 2058 347 722 232 9,944 1973 330 305 161 102 131 262 1206 8216 4733 1199 688 1700 19.032 1974 604 366 235 214 229 582 3936 5504 2862 793 238 253 15,816
1975 292 242 171 117 106 288 484 3055 6385 2116 611 260 14,125 1976 370 290 244 212 168 251 1061 3493 1779 285 304 298 8,756 1977 308 230 198 82 47 142 1898 1567 390 80 173 109 5,222 1978 196 154 70 36 39 379 276 5449 4939 892 417 308 13,153
Mean 304 247 150 101 158 318 1,143 2,612 2,845 999 353 326 9,555
* Values estimated by correlation with North Fork Owl Creek near Anchor.
Table 11- 4. Evaporation Estimates at Potential Reservoir Sites, Gooseberry Creek level II Study (all values are in inches).
Reservoir Site
Meeteetse and lower Gooseberry and Ueeer Gooseberrt Middle Gooseberrl Buffalo Creek Sand Draw Wood River
Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Month EvaQ. PreciQ. EvaQ. EvaQ. Precie· Evae· Evae· Precie· Evae· Evae· Precie· Evae· Evae· Precie· Evae
January 1. 08 .46 .62 1.10 .79 .31 1.13 .30 .83 1.13 .29 .84 1.08 .66 .42
February 1. no .46 .54 1.00 .79 .21 1.05 .30 .75 1.05 .29 .76 1. 00 .66 .34
'''arch 1. 56 .78 .78 1.60 .57 1.03 1.64 . 51 1. 13 1.64 . 50 1. 14 1. 56 1. 14 .42
lI.pri 1 3.20 1. 76 1. 44 3.30 1. 28 2.02 3.36 1. 15 2.21 3.36 1.11 2.25 3.20 2.57 .63
May 4.60 2.28 2.32 4.70 1.66 3.04 4.83 1.49 3.34 4.83 1.44 3.39 4.60 3.32 1. 28
June 5.24 2.02 3.22 5.40 1. 48 3.92 5.50 1.32 4.18 5.50 1. 28 4.22 5.24 2.94 2.30
....... July 6.84 1. 11 5.73 7.00 .81 6.19 7.18 .72 6.46 7.18 .70 6.48 6.84 1. 62 5.22 ""-J
Augus t 6.24 .84 5.40 6.40 .62 5.78 6.55 .55 6.00 6.55 .54 6.01 6.24 1. 24 5.00
September 4.60 1. 17 3.43 4.70 .86 3.84 4.83 .76 4.07 4.83 .74 4.09 4.60 1. 71 2.89
October 3.04 1.04 2.00 3.10 .76 2.34 3.19 .68 2.51 3.19 .66 2.53 3.04 1. 52 1. 52
November 1. 56 .65 .91 1. 60 .48 1.12 1.64 .42 1. 22 1.64 .41 1. 23 1. 56 .95 .61
December 1.04 .46 .58 1.10 . .33 .77 1.10 .30 .80 1.10 .29 .81 1.04 .66 .38
TOTAL 40.00 13.03 26.97 41.00 10.43 30.57 42.00 8.50 33.50 42.00 . 8.25 33.75 40.00 18.99 21. 01
Precipitation data from Rice (1983).
Evaporation dat(t from lewis (1978).
NO.
I 2 :3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23
DITCH
McCoy a Mator No.1 Fishhook Dickie Group Sun Star Quartz En!. Quartz Murphy Morton Perkins Homestead Steete Holder Petlrlon Holly a Nicco'" Holland Mahon South Lin. Sunnyside North Lint Sunnyside Toyne Warren Bloke - Denton Necber a En!. Gooseberry No. I
GOOSEBERRY CREEK
I I I I I I I I
21 ItO I I
- 1-0 810 01° I() I()
I.IJI~ >1° ° -J a:l11.IJ "" CD cnlcn Q Q zl z-"'" "'I"" -J .J
EXPLANATION
SUR FACE RETURN FLOWS'
tOO % ab. Fishhook 100 °/9 ab. Dickie Group 100 °/0 ab. Sun 30 % abo Star t 10% abo Quartz 100 % abo Quartz 100 % ab. Murphy 100 % abo Murphy 80 % ab. Rankine ReI.. 20 % ob. Perkin. tOO % ab. Puttin a 50 O/g ab. Homntead, to % abo St •• I. 40 % abo Hold" 100 Yo abo Holder 25 % abo Holder, 15 % ab. Ptterlon 50 % ab. Holly a NlccoUI,50 % abo Ptttnon No Divtnians 100 % abo Ho lland 100 % ab. South Line Sunnyside 70 % ab. Mohon No.2 Rea., 30 % abo South Line SunnYlide 15 % ab. Toyne, 85 % ab. Bloke· Denton 67 % ab. Toynt t 33 % ab. e loke - Otnton Pt. of Diversion chanQed to H. Line Sunnyside 60 % ab. Btake-Oenton,40 0/oob. Neiber a Enl.Gooseberry No.1 100 % ab. Helber a En!. Goottberry No.1 No Oiveniona
GROUND WATER RETURN FLOWS'
100 % abo Filhhooi 100 '1 ab. Dickie Group 100 Yo a.b. Sun 30 ~ abo Star t 10 % abo Quartz lao Yo ab.. Quartz 100 % ab. Murphy 100 % ab. Murphy e o~ abo Rankine Res., 35 % ob. Perkin. 100 Yo ab. Homestead 50 % ab. Homeltead hlO % ab. StH' t 40 010 ab. Holdlr 50 0/9 abo tiolder, 50 ~ ob. Petenon 25 % abo {iolder, 15 10 ob.Petiflon 15% abo Hatty 6 Niccolls, 35 %Qb. Hollond,50 % ab. Peter IOn No Divenion. 60 % ab.HoUond,5 % ob.Mahon,35 % ob.Mohan No.2 Res. 100 % abo South Une Sunnyside 70 % ab. Mohan No.2 Res .• 30 % South Line Sunnyside 15 % ab. Ttlyn. t 15 % ab. Bloke-DentontlO % abo Helber-Gooleberry 67 % ab. Toyne, 33 % abo Neiber a En!. Gooseberry No.1 Pt. of D'V1nion chanoed to N. Line Sunnysldl 60 % ob. Bloke-Denton, 40 % abo Neiber a Enl. Goo.eberry No.1 100 % ab. Heiber a En!. Gooseberry No. I No Diveraions
I Surface and Qround water flows make up 36 % and 64 %. respectively, of total r.turn floW1.
INTERPRETATION
Sample in~erp,.tation of table at left: 30 % of the surface flow. from diversion into the Sun Ditch (line 4) are .. timated to Ihow up upltream of the Star Ditch hladqate and 10 0/ 0 will Ihow up between thl Star and Quartz Ditch hladQates. Ground water return flow~ are •• timated to return to the lome reach.. of Gooseberry Creek in the lome perclntaqel as the .urface component.
o ®
RESERVOIRS
Moon Re.ervoir Buffalo Re.ervolr
Rankine Re.ervoir
® HIUberry Reaervoir
o Mahan No.2 Relervoir
@ Wortham Re.ervolr
® Blake- Denton No.1 a 2 R.servoirs
FIGURE JI-2 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
GOOSEBERRY CREEK SHOWING DIVERSION DITCHES WITH RETURN
FLOW ESTIMATING PROCEDURES REVISIONS
P.'. ., ~ern ater • C/lllMlllCCIf.. "rDlf1OU)tlr·
onsultants.tnc. • KONrDlfOC.J:1tIf'·
".0. eo. "". ".0 .• oa 1041 L .. " .... C • .,T. no." "":11110..", 'fIT •• ,.01
(101' ''''-0011 (10'" tn-.e ..
0.._ .y ....... Ie:-.. I,'''TT lo.t.· t-'J-'~ 1 ..... •
18
8.1 Irrigated Acreages and Water Rights. As listed in Table 11-2
above, there are 4,478 acres of land currently irrigated along
Gooseberry Creek. Of this total 482 acres are currently irrigated by
pumpi ng from the Bl uff Cana 1 even though the 1 ands served by pumpi ng
have a 1906 wa ter ri ght on Gooseberry Creek through the Bl ake-Denton
Ditch. The remaining acreage (3,996 acres) receives water from various
ditches diverting out of Gooseberry Creek.
Some of the lands toward the upper end of the creek receive water
most of the year, but the majority of the irrigated acreage ;s severely
short of water. In the dry years there is no water in the creek for
diversion and in the extremely high years (such as 1983) the flood
waters damage headgates which make diversions impossible.
There are 8,290 acres of land which have currently valid water
rights with priority dates ranging from Territorial to 1936. Typically
only those lands with water rights having priority dates earlier than
1907 receive water (Copper, 1983). However, in some circumstances
regulation of headgates on a strict priority basis is not followed, and
"highority", or diversion on the basis of place on the creek, prevails.
For purposes of modeling the creek, two different modes were
developed: one in which the first ditch (in downstream order) on the
stream received its water demand, then the next, and so on down the
stream, a procedure commonly referred to as "highority"; the other mode
was to operate the creek on the basis of strict priority. This latter
operational mode assumed a 100-percent ability to match diversion with
demand. The Division Superintendent, Craig Cooper (Cooper, 1983),
informed us that typically water rights with a priority date later than
1907 rarely received a water supply. This was confirmed in the priority
simulation study base run.
19
8.2 Diversion Demands. The models were operated using the assumption
that the irrigated land under each ditch had an irrigation demand for
the computed consumptive irrigation requirement using the
Blaney-Criddle method (Table II-2). The overall operational efficiency
from diversion point to crop was assumed to be 40 percent. This is a
relatively high rate of efficiency, but because the current irrigators
have shown a good ability to husband their water resources in the past,
it is felt to be reasonable.
It is recognized that due to variations in elevation along
Gooseberry Creek, the consumptive irrigation demand will vary also. For
purposes of the models, it was assumed that lands above 5,000 feet
elevation would have one demand and those below 5,000 feet elevation
would have another demand greater than that for lands above 5,000 feet.
In order to compute the diversion demands, the lands below 5,000 feet
elevation were assumed to require water as determined from Table 1I-2
with a 40 percent efficiency. To estimate the demands for lands above
5,000 feet, the values in Table 11-2 were multiplied by 0.87. This
correction factor was determined from estimates presented in the Level 1
study (Rice, 1983).
8.3 Return Flows. Return flows were estimated to be 75 percent of the
difference between the diversion amount and the consumptive use. This
procedure assumes that 25 percent of the difference will be consumed by
non-beneficial uses, e.g. willows, bogged areas, and deep percolation.
The diversion ditches and irrigated lands are close to the creek which
results in flows returning to the stream without large loss. The return
flow was assumed to enter the creek in varying amounts throughout the
20
year according to the percentage amounts given in Table II-S. Note that
the months are not defined by name, but represent the number of months
following the diversion. The distribution was obtained from the Level I
study (Rice, 1983). Procedures for computing return flows are described
on Figure II-I.
8.4 Existing Reservoirs. There are several small reservoirs existing
along Gooseberry Creek, but no records exist as to how they are
operated. For purposes of the model, they were assumed to fill during
March and April and water was released during June, July, August, and
September. This procedure was obtained from the Level I study (Rice,
1983) .
8.5 Shortages. The models indicate the extent of any shortage
experi enced by the 1 ands. The shortage is expres sed as the amount of
water (acre-feet) by which the creek falls short of meeting the
consumptive irrigation demand including the 40 percent efficiency. The
shortages are separated for those lands above and below 5,000 feet
elevation.
21
Table 11-5. Percentage of Return Flow Entering Gooseberry Creek by Months Subsequent to Diversion. (Rice, 1983)
Months after Diversion 0 1 2
Surface Water Return Flow 36 o o Ground Water Return Flow 10 15 10
Total Return Flow 46 15 10
3 4
o o
6 4
6 4
5
o
4
4
6
o
3
3
Surface water return flows represent 36% of total return flow
Ground water return flows represent 64% of total return flow
7 8 9 10 11
o o o o o 3 3 2 2 2
3 3 2 2 2
Total
36
64
100
1.0 Need for Project
CHAPTER III
PLAN FORMULATION
The hydrologic simulation studies developed for this study confirm
that the water users dependent on Gooseberry Creek for their water
supply suffer severe water shortages practically every year. The
shortages are so severe that most residents must rely on some source of
outside income in order to remain in business. The need for some type
of wa ter deve 1 opment has been recogni zed for more than 50 years, yet
nothing has been accomplish to alleviate the problems of the water
users.
In order to quantify the need for a project, the existing system
was modeled in what were termed base runs. Two base runs of the
simulation model were made. The first base run assumed that the creek
would be operated on a strict priority basis, i.e. the water would be
delivered first to the earliest priority no matter where on the creek
the diversion took place. This model confirmed that rights after 1907
suffer severe shortages every year. The second base run assumed that
water would be diverted by the uppermost ditch on the creek first and
the next one in downstream order second, etc. The ditches and irrigated
acreages are listed in downstream order in Table II-I.
The existing system consists of 3,996 acres of land being served
from Gooseberry Creek and 482 acres bei ng served by pumpi ng from the
Bluff Canal. There are no current shortages to the lands being served
by pumps. The diversion demand for the 3,996 acres is 17,595 acre-feet
per year; of which 5,301 acre-feet are for lands above 5,000 feet
23
elevation and 12,294 acre-feet are for lands below 5,000 feet. The
model indicates that the 3996 acres suffer an average shortage of 7,787
acre-feet or 44 percent. There is a seri ous shortage every yea r in
August and September, in all but one year in July, and in 11 out of 29
yea rs in June. Tab 1 es I I I -1 and 2 present the shortages in acre-feet
for lands above and below 5,000 feet, respectively and Tables 111-3 and
4 present the percent shortages.
The ope rat ion s tudi es are di scu s sed in deta i 1 in the Fi na 1 Report
Level II Feasibility Study.
2.0 Selection of Site
Eight damsites were considered for regulating the flows of
Gooseberry Creek (Figure 111-1). The Gooseberry Creek Water Management
operation model was used to determine the preferred capacity and the
preferred location of a reservoir.
The site was first selected based on operation studies of the
Gooseberry Creek sys tern run as sumi ng a reservoi rat each of the ei ght
i dent i fi ed sites. The s tudi es were run to de termi ne if the reservo i r
location would have a significant impact on the shortages and thus
influence the site selection. While the sites lower in the watershed
might theoretically be better because they receive runoff from more of
the watershed and they are closer to the lands to be served, the results
of the operation studies indicated there was little difference in the
yields among all reservoirs. Analysis showed ·the reason for this is
that most of the streamflow which originates below the Upper Gooseberry
Creek Reservoir site arrives in Gooseberry Creek at times when the water
24
N U'1
Table III-I. Current Shortages to 1,327 Acres of Irrigated Lands along Gooseberry Creek above 5,000 Feet Elevation (irrigation demand = 5,301 acre-feet).
SC ENA.R I 0 NO. 0 OOOSEB~RRY CR WAT~R SVPPLY STUDY. BASE RW (NO STORAOE. EXISTINQ CONDITIONS) NO DIVERSION FROM WOOD RIVER AND NO PVMPINO FRaN DICHORN RIVER.
SHORTAOE, LANDS A90V~ SOOO' (ACRE-FEET)
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .JVN .JUL AVO SEP TOTAL 1950 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 479.9 0.0 479.0 1951 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5:U.6 97. 1 618.6 1952 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 123.0 154.2 277.2 1953 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 156.9 594. 9 224. 0 966. 5 1954 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 421. 0 1092.5 776.6 446.3 27:l6.4
1955 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21. 2 0.0 111. 6 710. 1 923. 9 342.9 2009. , 1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 967.9 710.5 3'1. 3 1929.1 1957 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1959 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 1959 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 977.0 829.4 416.9 2123.3
1960 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 327.7 1094.2 859.3 413.4 2684. 1 1961 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1022. 5 902. 5 0.0 1925.0 1962 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 147. :5 0.0 t47.5 1963 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 226.7 0.0 226.1 1964 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o. 0 0.0 404. 9 66.3 471. 2
196' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 •. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 253.8 0.0 253.9 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 566.9 1165. 1 934. 1 352. 6 3018. 1 1967 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.5 0.0 64. 5 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 331. 5 727.9 314.7 1374.0
1970 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 390.3 712.3 119.9 1212.4 1971 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 530. 4 614.7 75. 6 1220.8 1972 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 692. 5 0.0 99.2 790.6 1973 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1974 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.9 473. 1 40.2 '76. 1
197' 0.0 0.0 O. O. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.6 :3'.3 86.0 1976 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77'.3 497.2 '2.0 131~.'
1977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 217.9 1097.0 714.2 :3-44.:3 2363. 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 254.9 0.0 261. 7 1979
AVERA~E O. 0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 '6. 7 373. , "37. , 13'. 7 J004.2
N (j)
Table 111-2. Current Shortages to 2,669 Acres of Irrigated Lands along Gooseberry Creek below 5,000 Feet Elevation (irrigation demand = 12,294 acre-feet).
SCENAR 10 NO. 0 COQSEBERRY CR WATER SUPPLY STUDY. 8ASE RU'-4 (NO STORAOE. EXISTINO CONDITIONS) NO DIVERSION FROM WOOD RIVER AND NO PUMPINO FROM DICHORN RIVER.
SHORTAOE, LANDS DELO\.l 5000' (ACRE-FEET)
YEAR OCT NOV DEC "'AN FEB MAR APR MAY .JUN ~ AVO SEP TOTAL
1950 86. ~ 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 911. 9 1500.6 2129.6 407.3 5034.8 1951 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 1209.4 1669.9 2143.0 1099.6 6119.9 1952 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2031. 9 2069.6 1099.3 5189.8 1953 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2944.9 2209.9 1161. 9 6316. 7 1954 96.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97. , 2370.8 322'.4 2360. 1 12'1.7 9401. ,
19~~ 305.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 604.1 930.3 2401. 2 3263.2 2383.2 1271. 2 11058. 1 1956 326.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1967.6 3170.7 2324. 1 1231.3 9020.4 19'7 128. , O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1791. 9 727. 1 2647.' 19'9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2191.3 1691. 5 978.' 4851.3 19'9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1965.3 3159. 1 2319.7 1229.6 9672. 7
1960 1.040. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .HO.4 875. S 2437.S 3262.7 2392.3 1267.2 10575.6 1961 230. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 391.3 9~~. 1 1122.9 31S1. 4 2306.6 860.2 9007.' 1962 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27'9.4 2133. 1 972. 1 ~963.6 1963 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2~46.7 2139.3 1009.0 5695.0 1964 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2722. 1 2176.' 1113.7 6012.3
1965 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29'1. 3 2166. 5 934. 1 59:U.9 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29'.2 9'1. 6 2448.0 326'.6 2382.0 1269.5 10611. 9 1967 114. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1326. 1 1996.6 914.7 42'2.0 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2731. 1 2004. 1 791.0 5526. 1 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 619. 4 1001. 0 3084.0 2281. 1 1209.2 9194.6
1970 106.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3004.4 2224.0 1160.2 649'.2 1971 33. 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3019.6 2221. 1 1146.6 6420.9 1972 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '6.3 0.0 66.9 3031. 6 2113.0 1133. 1 6400.7 1973 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2396. 1 1969.4 0.0 4354.' 1974 0.0 O. a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :2992.2 2193.4 111 5.5 6191.1
197' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 131'.9 1987.4 1009.3 4312.7 1976 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 470.3 305'.3 2246.2 1152. 5 6924.3 1977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2329.9 3217.4 23'4. 5 1249. 1 9149.9 1979 100.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 198.2 0.0 0.0 2899. 1 2172. , 1096.' 6447.3
AVERACE 57.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.2 149. :J 713.9 :2609.2 2167.2 102'. 4 6792. 7
Table 111-3. Percent Shortages to 1,327 Acres of Currently Irrigated Lands along Gooseberry Creek above 5,000 Feet Elevation.
~ENAAIO NO. 0 OooSEBERRY CR WATER SUPPLY STUDY. BAS£ R~ (NO STORAOE. EXISTINO CONDITIONS) NO DIVERSION FROM WOOD RIVER AND NO PUMPINO FROM BIOHORN RIVER.
SHORTACE AS A PERCENT OF DIVERSION DEMAND. ABOVE ~OOO'
Y£AA OCT NOV DEC .JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JVN JVL AUO SEP TOTAL
19'0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 0.0 9. 1 19'1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 48.8 14.8 11. 7 19'2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 11. 3 26.3 '.2 19'3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11. 1 '3. 7 38.3 18.2 19'4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37. , 77.0 71. 2 76.1 '1. 6
19" 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 10.0 '0.1 7'.6 '8.4 :37.9 19'6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61. 2 6'.2 '9. 9 :36.4 19'7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19'8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19'9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61. 8 76. 1 71. 0 40.1
1960 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 76. , 78.8 70. , '0.6 1961 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.1 82.8 0.0 36.3 1962 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13. 5 0.0 2.9 1963 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 4.3
N 1964 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 11. 3 9.9
-......J
196' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3 0.0 4.8 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.6 B2.2 B'. 7 60.1 '6.9 1967 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,. 9 0.0 1.2 1968 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 66.8 53. 6 2'.9
1970 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 6'.3 20. 4 22.9 1971 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37. 4 '6. 4 12.9 23.0 1972 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48. 1 0.0 16.7 14.7 1973 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1974 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 43. 4 6.8 10.9
197' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 6.0 1.6 1976 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '4.7 44.7 8.9 24.8 1977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 76.7 6'. , '8. 7 44.6
1978 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. , 23. " 0.0 4.9
AVER ACE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.3 0.0 ,. 1 26.3 40. 1 23.1 18.2
Table l1I-4. Percent Shortages to 2,669 Acres of Currently Irrigated Lands along Gooseberry Creek below 5,000 Feet Elevation.
SCENARIO HO., 0 COOSEBERRY CR WATER SUPPLY STUDY. BASE R\kt (NO STORACE. EXISTINC CONDITIONS) NO DIVERSION FROM WOOD RIVER AND NO PUMPINO FRON BIOHORN RIVER.
SHOflTAOE AS A PERCENT OF DIVERSION DEMAND, BELOW 5000'
YEAR OCT NOV DEC .JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .JUN .JVL AVO SEP TOTAL 1950 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :lb. 9 4b. 4 90.0 :l 1. 7 40.9 19'1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.9 51. 6 90. b 85. 4 49.8 19'2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.8 87. , 84.6 42.2 1953 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91. 0 93.4 90.3 ,1. 4 1954 2'.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 95.9 99.7 99.8 97.3 76. 5
195' 81. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.4 52.9 97.1 100.9 100.8 98. 8 89.9 1956 87.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 98.0 98.3 95.7 73.4 1957 34.4 q.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7'.9 5b. , 21. , 1958 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.7 71. 1 76. I 39. , 19'9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.5 97.7 98.1 95. 5 70. ,
1960 37. , 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 55.S 98.b 100.9 100.7 98. 5 86.0 1961 61. b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4'.7 60.9 4'.4 97.4 97. 5 66.9 73.3 1962 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8'.3 90.2 7'.6 47. 7 1963 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.7 90. , 78. 4 46.3 N 1964 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.1 92.0 86.6 48.9 (X)
196' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88. 1 91. 6 72. b 48.4 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3'.4 60.7 99.0 100.9 100.7 98. 7 86.3 1967 30. 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41. 0 84. 4 63.3 34.6 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. ° 0.0 84. 4 84. 7 61. , 44.9 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.5 40.5 95.3 96. , 94.0 66.7
1970 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.9 94.0 90.2 52. 9 1971 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.3 93.9 89. 1 52.2 1972 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 2. 7 93. 7 89.3 88.1 52. 1 1973 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.9 83.2 0.0 35.4 1974 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.4 92.3 86.7 50.4
1975 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.7 84.0 79. , :l,. 1 1976 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 94.4 95.0 89.6 56.3 1977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.2 99.5 99.6 97.0 74.4 1978 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 0.0 89.3 91. 9 S4. , '2.4
AVERACE 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 7.2 9. , 28. 9 80. 7 91. 6 79.7 ".2
LOCATIONS DAM SITES
CANALS,
OF ALTERNATIVE AND DIVERSION seE NARIO NO.1
~stern ater
onsultants.lnc.
".0 . ., ...... L ..... II( •• T .• IOTI (JOTt '41-001,
29
".0. IIOIl )04' IMCtIItO&... n. 1110. nOf) .n-••••
can be diverted and used on the land. Thus regulation of the major
source of runoff results in almost complete regulation of the entire
stream. Upper Gooseberry Creek Reservoi r was therefore selected for
further studies to determine the optimum reservoir capacity.
The system was next operated using various sizes of active
capacities in Upper Gooseberry Creek Reservoir. For purposes of this
study, the yi e 1 d from the reservoi r was defi ned as the decrease in
average annual shortages to the irrigated lands between the base run
study and an operation study with the reservoir imposed on the system.
The reservoir yield was plotted against active reservoir capacity as
shown on Figure 111-2. This curve shows that the maximum possible yield
from regulation of Gooseberry Creek would be 5,200 acre-feet with 15,000
acre-feet of active capacity. It also shows that the incremental yield
per unit increase in active capacity decreases after the storage reaches
about 8,000 acre-feet.
Wh i 1 e the average annua 1 yi e 1 d wa s important, the shortages in
June, July, and August were also significant. The number of years when
serious (greater than 1,000 acre-feet) shortage occurred in June, July
and August was determined and it was found that with storage greater
than 8,000 acre-feet of storage was provided. Therefore, it was
determined that the optimum size of reservoir to control the flows of
Gooseberry Creek was 8,000 acre-feet.
In addition to the river operation studies, comparison of the sites
was made for other factors. Right-of-way costs, possible structural
deficiencies, and the lack of regulation of streamflow eliminated the
two Sand Draw sites. The Buffalo Creek sites were eliminated because of
the difficulty and cost of importing water to them. The Meeteetse and
30
w ......
6000
5000
'-0 G
>-....... - 4000 G G
IJ..
G '-u
.q: -0 3000 -J w )0-
2000
I ° 5000
I I I I I I I I I I ~SELECTEO
I I I I
10,000
CURVE BASED ON :
l. Gooseberry Creek Flows Only (No Wood River Woter)
2. Reservoir Serves ElC\stinQ IrriQoted AcreoQe
3. No PumpinQ from Bi9 Horn River
4. AveroQe Annual ShortoQe of 7787 Acre - Feet (Bose ShortoQe without Upper Goose berry Re s er voi r ).
OPTIMUM RESERVOIR CAPACITY
20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
ACTIVE CAPACITY (Acre - Feet)
FIGURE JII-2: STORAGE-YIELD CURVE FOR UPPER GOOSEBERRY CREEK RESERVOIR - GOOSEBERRY CREEK FLOWS ONLY
Lower Gooseberry Creek sites were eli mi na ted becau se of the i rri gated
lands which would be inundated should either site be constructed. The
cost of the Upper Gooseberry Creek Dam and Reservoir was the least of
those sites investigated and no irrigated land would be removed from
production. These factors further supported the selection of the Upper
Gooseberry Creek Reservoir site.
It must be recognized that by just regulating the streamflow in
Gooseberry Creek there would still be shortages of irrigation water to
existing irrigated lands about 30 percent of the time. Tables III-5 and
6 present the percentage shortages that wou 1 d sti 11 exi st for 1 ands
above and below 5,000 feet elevation with a reservoir at the Upper
Gooseberry Creek site with 8,000 acre-feet of active capacity.
A summary of the cost estimates for different sizes of dams at six
of the sites are given in Table 111-7. Figure III-3 shows graphically
the comparative costs for the six sites. It will be noted that the
costs for the Lower Gooseberry Creek dam and the Meeteetse dam are more
than those at the upper site. If the upper site proves to be infeasible
following detailed geotechnical investigations, one of these other sites
should be reconsidered.
32
w w
Table 111-5. Percent of Shortages to 1,327 acres of Irrigated lands Along Gooseberry Creek Above 5,000 Feet Elevation.
SC ENAA 10 NO. COOSEBERRY CR \.lATER SVPPLY STVDY. UPPER OOOSEDERRY RES. , MAX. CAP 9000 A~ NO DIVERSION ~ROM ~OOD RIVER AND NO PUMPINO FROM 810 HORN RIVER.
SHORTACE AS A PERCENT OF DIVERSION DEMAND. ABOVE '000'
YEAR OCT NOV DEC .JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .JVN .J\JL AUe
1950 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 1951 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 48. 9 1952 0.0 0.0 o. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 o. 0 0.0 O. 0 1953 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o. 0 0.0 O. 0 195-4 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 76. 6 70. 9
1955 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10. 0 50. 1 7'. 6 19'6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61. :2 65. :2 19" 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 19'9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 o. 0 1959 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o. 0 O. 0 74. 0
1960 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :29. 9 7b. 5 79. 8 1961 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 72. 1 92. 9 1962 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 1963 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 1964 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0
196' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o. 0 0.0 0.0 1966 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50. 6 9:2. :2 85.1 1967 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 o. 0 O. 0 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 66.8
1910 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 6'.4 1971 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 1972 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 o. 0 0.0 1973 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1914 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o. 0 0.0 0.0
191' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1976 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13. :2 6:2. 3
1979 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0
AV£RACE O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. 1 14.9 28.3
SEP TOTAl.
O. 0 9. 1 1-4. 9 11. 7 o. 0 0.0
:H. ~ 3. 9 7'.9 -43. 5
'9. 4 37. , '9. 9 36.4 0.0 0.0 o. 0 0.0
b8. 5 :2:2.9
10. 5 50.6 O. 0 36.3 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o. 0 0.0 60. 1 56. 9
O. 0 0.0 o. 0 0.0
'3. 7 19.7
:20. 4 15. 7 9, :2 O. 1
15. " 0.:2 o. 0 0.0 0.0 0,0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
54.5 22. '" O. 0 0.0
20. , 12. 7
w .p,.
Table 111-6. Percent Shortages to 2,669 Acres of Irrigated Land Along Gooseberry Creek Below 5,000 Feet Elevation.
SCENAR 10 NO. COOSEBERRY CR \.lATER SUPPLY STUDY. UPPER COOSEBERRY RES. , MAX. CAP 8000 AF NO DIVERSION FROM WOOD RIVER AND NO PUMPINO FROM BI0 HORN RIVER.
SHORTACE AS Itt. PERCENT OF DIVERSION DEMAND. BELOW ~OOO'
YEAR OCT NOV DEC "AN FEB MAR APR MAY ,JUN '-'UL Aue SEP
19~0 O. b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 7 0.0 22.0 83. :3 1~.0 19~1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 O. 0 13.4 82.1 75.5 19~2 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 9 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 19~3 O. 0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 O. 9 O. 9 O. 0 11. 0 b2. 9 19~o4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 :21. 7 94. 1 94.4 91. :3
1955 55. 1 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :25.0 49.9 'lb. :3 100. 5 100. 5 98. 0 1956 80.8 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 7 24. 9 94. 9 94. 0 91. 6 1957 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 o. 0 0.0 19~9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 o. 0 O. 0 O. 0 1959 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 9 O. 0 0.0 80. 0 74.9
1960 10. ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30. 1 'lb. 1 100.3 100. 3 97./) 1961 43. 5 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 3. 4 bOo 0 44. 2 97. 2 96. 8 01. 7 1962 O. 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 7 O. 8 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 1963 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 9 O. 9 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 1964 O. 0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 1.7 O. 0 0.0 o. 0 o. 0
19b~ O. 0 o. 0 0.0 o. 0 o. 0 O. 0 o. 0 O. 9 O. 'I O. 0 O. 0 8. 0 1966 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 19.3 94.7 99. 1 '19. b '17.3 1967 0.8 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 7 O. 0 o. 0 o. 0 o. 0 19b8 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 O. 9 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 1969 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 79.9 74. 7
1970 12.8 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 O. 8 O. 9 O. 0 80. 9 74.2 1971 1.9 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.8 O. 9 O. 0 t 4. 1 bO. 5 1972 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 O. 6 0.0 45.0 bo. 0 1973 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 3. 7 1974 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 0.0
1975 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0: 9 O. 0 O. 0 o. 0 o. 0 197b O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 1977 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 9 O. 0 '10. 4 q~.o 89. 3 1979 2. 2 O. 0 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 9 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0
AVER ACE 7. 2 O. 0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 b.O 13. 3 24. ~ 39. 8 39. 4
TOTAL
22.0 25.2
O. 1 9. :3
55. 0
84. /) 58.5 0.0 o. 0
:21. 2
78. 9 68. 1
O. 3 O. 3 0.2
L 1 76. "
O. 1 O. t
21. 0
21. 7 8. 6
14. 4 O. " 0.0
O. 1 O. 0
49. ~ O. 2
21. :3
Table 1I1-7. Summary of Costs For Various Sizes of Dams on Gooseberry Creek.
Structure Capac; ty (A. F.)
Total Active
Upper Gooseberry Creek Dam 41,300 31,500 21,300 13,300 6,300
Middle Gooseberry Creek Dam 14,300 7,300
Lower Sand Draw Dam 5,670 1,870
Upper Sand Draw Dam 5,650 1,850
Meeteetse Dam 11,640
Lower Gooseberry Creek Dam 13,00
40,000 30,000 20,000 12,000 5,000
12,000 5,000
5,000 1,200
35
5,000 1,200
8,000
8,000
Cost
$i2,700,270 11,701,720 10,215,360 8,142,340 5,646,900
11,171,721 8,677,800
11,707,600 8,935,300
8,157,210 7,351,982
7,500,000
7,730,000
30 r----------.-----------.----------r----------.----------,----------.----------~----------~-----T __ _
25
; ., LA... , ., ... 20 u 4:
>-~ U 4: a.. 4: u 15
a: -0 > a: LLI
W CI) O"l LLI
a: 10
LLI > -.-U 4:
----o~----------~--------------------~--------------------~--------~~--------~----------~--------~
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
COST U 1 ,000,000)
FIGURE lli- 3 DAM AND RESERVOIR COST (tl,OOO,OOO) (1983 LEVEL) GOOSEBERRY CREEK PROJECT
CHAPTER IV
PROJECT DESIGNS AND COST ESTIMATES
1.0 Introduction
Preliminary designs and cost estimates were prepared for several
combinations of storage reservoirs for the purpose of providing
addi ti ona 1 water suppl i es to Gooseberry Creek water users. The water
supply studies and preliminary cost estimates discussed in Chapter III
helped to identify the most practicable facility. The criteria used in
the development of designs and cost estimates are outlined in this
chapter. The facility selected and the cost estimates derived are also
described.
2.0 Criteria
2.1 Facility Design
Designs were prepared for various sizes of dams using the best
"information available. No field work was undertaken except for a
reconnaissance visit to the damsites considered in the formulation of
the projects. Only earthfill dams were considered at this stage of the
investigation because of the geologic information available. Embankment
volumes were estimated from site data obtained from field
reconnaissance, regional geology maps, and USGS topographic maps.
Capabilities of the storage facilities were determined from water
operation studies simulating the performance of the project during the
historic 1950-78 period and discussed in Chapter III. Water
availability during critical runoff periods was a key factor in sizing
37
the facilities. Capacities and yields were compared against costs in
selecting the final capacities. These capacities will be subject to
modification during detailed design studies.
Spillway capacity was determined by routing the lOO-year frequency
flood through the reservoir. This flood was assumed reasonable for use
;n spillway design since no urban development occurs immediately down
stream and loss of life due to failure would be extremely remote.
The design flood was prepared from theoretical precipitation values
obtained from Design of Small Dams (USBR, 1977) with'runoff adjustments
made due to characteristics of the watershed. Routing studies provided
for storage of one-ha 1 f the flood volume wi thout encroachment on the
freeboard.
Allocation of dead storage for sediment deposition was based on
sediment values observed in similar watersheds for Corps of Engineers'
projects. Sediment occurrence in the upper reaches of the watershed
would be less than that expected downstream. No detailed analysis was
made of suspended sediment or bedload.
2.2 Cost Estimates
Cost estimates for storage facilities were developed from
information provided by the Bureau of Reclamation, State of California,
and numerous agencies from other states. These values were updated to
April 1983 levels through use of cost indices developed by the USBR.
Operation and maintenance costs were based on values experienced by
the Bureau of Reclamation for several existing projects. These costs
were adjusted to reflect the availability of local labor from the
38
Irrigation District to operate and maintain parts of the system. An
average annual amount for contract labor and supplies was added to this
local labor cost.
3.0 Geology
3.1 Regional Geology
The Gooseberry Creek project 1 ands are 1 oca ted in the Bi g Horn
Basin of the Rocky Mountain Physiographic Province. The Big Horn Basin
is a broad structural valley surrounded by high mountain ranges formed
by anticlinal folds; the Big Horn Mountains are to the east and south,
and the Beartooth, Absaroka, and Shoshone Mountains are to the west.
The southwestern section of the basin along the base of the Absaroka
Range is the source of Gooseberry Creek.
The damsites proposed for the project are located in tertiary and
cretaceous age formations comprised primarily of sedimentary shales and
sa nds tones. The topography of the upper reaches of Gooseberry Creek
where the most economical damsites are located is that of mountains
formed by erosion of relatively flat lying rock layers.
3.2 Site Geology
The Upper Gooseberry Creek damsite is located within the Mesaverde
formation and Cody shale of cretaceous age. The left or north abutment,
located in the Mesaverde formation, is a massive tan sandstone dipping
tot hen 0 r the as t w h i c h form s a s t e ep s lop e wit h ve r tic a 1 c 1 iff s . The
right or south abutment is formed of Cody shale, which is described as
gray soft marine shale with many lenticular sandstone beds and some
39
bentonite beds. This abutment appears to be a dip slope with a mantle
of surficial deposits which support scattered stands of heavy timber.
Little information is available concerning the underlying materials as
no records of subsurface investigations could be found.
Materials available for construction of an embankment will be found
;n adequate quantity in the alluvial deposits of clays and silts located
wi th i n the reservo ira rea. Sands and gravels for concrete aggregates
are anticipated to be found in sufficient amounts in the stream channel.
Previous studies by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) have
indicated that the quality of local sandstone of the Mesaverde formation
for use as riprap varies from fair to excellent. The caprock, where
quartzite, would be the preferable source of riprap.
3.3 Seismicity
The proposed Upper Gooseberry Creek Dam site is located in seismic
ri s k zone 1 as shown on the Se i smi c Ri s k Map of the Un i ted States by
Algermissen. Minor damage to structures is anticipated from potential
ground movement associated with earthquakes in zone 1. The effects of
ground shaking are described by intensity V and VI of the Modified
Mercalli intensity scale.
4.0 Project Designs
Des i gns for the structures proposed in thi s study were prepared
using the previously described criteri·a and available data. Cross
sections for the embankments, as well as reservoir capacity data, were
prepared from USGS quadrangle maps. Material and quantities necessary
for construction cost estimates were then calculated using these data.
40
4.1 Upper Gooseberry Creek Dam
The proposed structure would be located on Gooseberry Creek in Park
County in SEi NEi Sec. 36, T.47 N., R.10! w. about 15 miles upstream of
State Highway 120. The earthfill dam with a crest elevation of 6430
feet woul d impound a reservoi r contai ni ng about 8,000 acre-feet of
active storage and 1,300 acre-feet of sediment and flood storage. The
hydraulic height of the dam will be approximately 105 feet.
4.2 Embankment
A zoned earthfi 11 embankment appears to be the most practical
section for the Upper Gooseberry Creek dam, due primarily to the
availability of construction materials in the immediate area. The
topography of the damsite does not eliminate the potential for
constructing a concrete gravity dam. However, no determination of the
availability of large quantities of suitable aggregates for concrete can
be made with the limited subsurface information available.
The zoned embankment dam proposed would be designed with a central
core of impervious material flanked on the upstream side by a zone of
more pervious materials. The upstream slope would be protected from
erosion by a layer of riprap.
Downstream of the central core, a zone of free-draining sands and
gravel would be placed to enhance the stability of the structure. The
remaining portion of the embankment would be constructed with materials
similar to those used in the upstream zone. The embankment as presently
envisioned would have a crest length of about 870 feet at elevation 6430
feet and would contain approximately one quarter million cubic yards of
earthfill materials.
41
4.3 Spillway and River Outlet
The spillway and river outlet for Upper Gooseberry Creek Dam would
be located on the left or north abutment, where a more competent
sandstone foundation is anticipated. The spillway would be an
uncontrolled concrete overflow section with a crest length of 25 feet at
an elevation of 6425 feet. The capacity of the spillway is sufficient
to safely pass the lOO-year flood and maintain an embankment freeboard
of five feet.
Two operati ng condi ti ons were cons i dered in determi ni ng the re
quired capacity of the river outlet works, downstream flow requirements,
and an acceptable rate of lowering the reservoir water surface eleva
t ion. The ri ver out 1 et was sized to lower the reservoi r wa ter surface
elevation by one-third of the available head within a one-month period.
Under this criterion, the maximum discharge of the outlet works would be
100 cfs.
5.0 Project Cost Estimates
5.1 Construction Costs
In preparing the cost estimate for the embankment dam, the volume
of earthfill required for construction was determined from cross sec
tions taken from USGS quadrangle maps and a unit cost per cubic yard was
assigned based on a graduated scale where larger quantities would allow
for lower unit costs. This method provides for the economy of scale.
The spillway and river outlet construction costs were based on unit
prices for excavation, structural concrete, welded steel pipe, and
42
miscellaneous mechanical and electrical systems. These structures were
sized to safely pass the required flows and optimize structural dimen
sions.
Table IV-l shows the cost estimates Upper Gooseberry Creek Dam and
Reservoir.
43
Table IV-I. Cost Estimate for Upper Gooseberry Creek Dam and Reservoir.
Description
Upper Gooseberry Creek Dam and Reservoir 8,000 AF Active Capacity (9,300 AF Total Capacity)
Lands
Embankment
Service Spillway
River Outlet
Relocation of Roads, etc.
Total Use
44
Cost
78,000
4,901,720
365,000
1,661,000
60,800
7,066,520 7,100,000
CHAPTER V
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
1.0 Introduction
Th is chapter descri bes the economi c and fi nanci a 1 cos ts and bene
fits of developing new water supplies in the Gooseberry Creek watershed.
The primary benefits from such development would accrue to farmers and
ranchers in the area along with service oriented businesses. For that
reason, the primary emphasis of the economic analysis revolved around
estimating the economic benefits that would accrue due to increased crop
production, as well as the secondary benefits that would accrue to the
local economy.
The cornerstone of the economic analysis was a series of 14 per
sonal in-depth interviews with existing farmers and ranchers with
adjudicated water rights on Gooseberry Creek. These interviews repre
sent approximately 70 percent of all water rights in the drainage, and
over 90 percent of all land currently irrigated. The purpose of the
in-depth interviews was two-fold: first, to establish baseline informa
tion on current economic and financial conditions of agricultural
operators in the region; and, second, to provide information from which
estimates of increased production and income could be made for alter
native water development scenarios.
The information obtained from the interviews was used to develop
farm budgets for typical irrigated agricultural operations in the
Gooseberry Creek watershed. Different budgets and crop rotations were
developed for agricultural operations above and below 5,000 feet in
45
elevation, and the cropping patterns and crop yields were varied to take
into account the amount of water that would be available for various
water development alternatives. The results of this economic analysis
of irrigated agricultural operations in the watershed are described in
Section 2.0, below.
The final step in the economic analysis was to assess financing
alternatives for water development in the drainage, as well as present
estimates of the beneficiaries ability to pay for such development. The
results of this analysis are described in Section 5.0, below.
2.0 Potential Agricultural Benefits
This section of the report describes the economic benefits that
would accrue directly to farm and ranch operators as a result of
the proposed water development plan for the Gooseberry Creek watershed.
These benefi ts were deri ved by compari ng the economi c returns of a
typ i ca 1, current opera t i on wi th the returns tha t cou 1 d be achi eved if
more water were available.
2.1 Present Agricultural Practices
The data in Table V-I depict the current cropping practices and
returns of a typical operator along Gooseberry Creek. As the data show,
both crop yields and returns are quite low for current operations. This
situation is a direct result of water shortages in the drainage. The
hydrologic model developed for this study indicates that approximately
17,600 acre-feet of water would need to be diverted at headgates to
fully irrigate current crops during one growing season. Currently,
46
Table V-I. Annual Yields and Returns Per Acre for a Representative Gooseberry Creek Operationa
Weighted Cropping Gross b Productlon Net d Net
Cro~ Pattern Yields Units Returns Costs Returns Returns
Alfalfa-Grass .679 1.7 Tons 99.80 101.86 - 2.06 - 1.40
Oats .161 60 Bushels 114.50 181.25 -66.75 -10.75
Irrigated Pasture .161 3 AUfvls 27.00 21.68 5.32 0.86
Total -11.29
aResults are based on a survey of current operators in the Gooseberry Creek watershed with an average of 280 acres in irrigated crop production.
bGross returns are based on the following crop prices: (1) alfalfa-grass hay @ $55/ton; (2) oats @ SI.70/bushel; (3) grazing @ $9/AUM. The returns for oats include t ton of straw per acre @ $25/ton; the returns for alfalfa-grass includes .7 AUM's of after-mth grazing per acre @ $9/AUM.
cProduction costs include $5/hour to owner for labor and a management fee ..
dNet return per acre represents the return to land and water.
however, less than 10,000 acre-feet is available in an average year, and
virtually no water is available in July and August.
The net annual return of -$11.29 in the table is a return to land
and water after a labor cHarge of $5 per hour and a management fee are
subtracted. The negative result indicates that current operations, on
the average, do not return a $5 hourly wage for labor and a management
fee to their operators, even when land and water costs are ignored.
If more reliable water supplies could be developed for irrigated
lands along Gooseberry Creek, the yields and return~ depicted in Table
V-I could be increased significantly, as described in the following
section.
2.3 Future Scenarios
Th is sect i on of the report summari zes crop product i on cos ts and
returns for increasing the supply of water for irrigation along
Gooseberry Creek. Crop production costs were estimated using the
CROPBUDGET program on the AGNET computer system and are based on units
of 280 acres of irrigated land (the AGNET system is a computerized farm
management system developed by the Old West Regional Commission and
maintained by the University of Nebraska). This farm size represents
the average number of i rri ga ted acres of respondents to the survey of
irrigators described previously.
Input data concerning cultural practices, machinery usage, input
costs, yields, and prices are based on survey data, agricultural pub
lications, and the authors· familiarity with agriculture in the Big Horn
48
Basin area. In the following discussion, net return is defined as the
return to land and water after paying all other production and marketing
costs; i.e., what might be available to pay for land and water.
2.3.1 Selected Plan
The project plan selected involves the construction of a reservoir
a t the Upper Gooseberry Creek site wi th an act i ve capac i ty of 8,000
acre-feet. A hydrologic simulation of Gooseberry Creek from 1950-78
estimates that this reservoir would yield an average of 4,660 acre-feet
of additional water annually. This additional water would be enough to
insure a full water supply to existing irrigated lands during 14 of 29
years of the study period. During an additional 6 to 8 years, small
shortages would occur late in the growing season (after August 1), but
should not be serious enough to substantially reduce yields of alfalfa
and small grain.. However, there would still be a number of years when
the 3,996 acres presently irrigated by Gooseberry Creek would face
serious water shortages. Based upon the hydrologic simulation, serious
water shortages would occur in 7 out of 29 years for irrigated land
above 5,000 feet, and in 9 out of 29 years for irrigated land below
5,000 feet.
The water supply from an 8,000 acre-foot active capacity reservoir
would be sufficient for the establishment of good alfalfa stands in the
watershed, as well as the production of small grains and corn silage in
the 2 out of 3 years when sufficient water is available. Even in the
water short years, sufficient water should be available for two cuttings
of alfalfa if small grains are not planted and water is reserved for
existing alfalfa stands only.
49
To estimate the economic benefits associated with the development
it was assumed that no new lands would be brought into production and
that existing lands would be planted in alfalfa; along with barley and
corn silage when sufficient water was available. It was assumed that
all available water would be diverted to alfalfa stands in water-short
years. These assumptions admittedly place a premium upon being able to
estimate snowpack and reservoir content prior to the growing season.
Therefore, it should be emphasized that the net returns attributed to
this scenario in a sense represent a "best case" situation that may be
difficult to achieve consistently on an ongoing basis.
The results of the net return analysis for the development plan are
given in Table V-2. The first columns of that table show the crops and
yields that could be expected from currently irrigated lands if an 8,000
acre-foot active capacity reservoir were built at the Upper Gooseberry
Creek site and operational management were optimized. The results are
shown separately for lands above and below 5,000 feet in elevation, and
for full water and water short years. The cropping patterns and yields
are based upon the assumption that alfalfa hay would remain the
predominant crop in the watershed.
The hydrologic simulation also shows that in 8 out of 29 years
wa ter s upp 1 i es wou 1 d ex~eed i rri ga t ion dema nds for the 3,996 acres
presently irrigated. This excess water would be available primarily in
May a nd -June and wou 1 d average 3,700 acre-feet duri ng those 8 years.
These additional water supplies are accounted for in the analysis
through the application of this water to an additional 1850 acres that
are not usually irrigated to produce grass-hay. In computing a value
for this additional water, 2 acre-feet of water per acre was assumed to
50
Table V-2. Estimated Annual Crop Production Costs and Returns Per Acre for Planned Development (8,000 Acre-Foot Reservoir)
Per Acre Composite Composite Cropping Gross Production Net b Weights Net
Crop Pa ttern Yield Unit Returnsa Costs Returns Acres Years Returnc
Above 5,000 Feet - Full Water Su~~ly" Alfalfa . 714 3.2 Tons 198.30 113.90 84.40 · 237 . 76 15.20 Feed Barley .286 75 Bushels 191.25 189.46 1.79 .095 .76 0.13
Below 5,000 Feet - Full Water Su~~ly" Alfalfa .571 4.0 Tons 246.30 165.88 80.42 .381 .69 21.14 Corn Silage .143 17.0 Tons 306.00 278.23 27.77 · 096 .69 1.84 Malt Barley .143 85 Bushels 307.75 251.06 56.69 .096 .69 3.76 Feed Barley .143 75 Bushels 191.25 190.33 0.92 · 096 .69 0.06
(Jl .......
- Water Shortaged Above 5,000 Feet Alfalfa .714 2.9 Tons 177 . 15 113.90 63.25 .237 .24 3.60
Below 5,000 Feet - Water Shortage d
Alfalfa .571 3.0 Tons 180.15 165.88 14.27 .381 .31 1.69
Composite Total Net Return 47.42 Per Acre Value of Water Supplies Above Irrigation Demands for 3,996 Acres e 3.19 Total Net Return $50.61
(For footnotes, refer to the next page.)
Table V-2. Estimated Crop Production Costs and Returns Per Acre for Scenario No. 1 (continued)
a Gross returns are based on the following crop prices: (1) alfalfa - $60/ton; (2) feed barley - $2.30/bu; (3) malt barley - $3.40/bu; and (4) corn silage - $18/ton. The returns to alfalfa also include .7 AUM's of aftermath grazing per acre in full-water years and .35 AUM's per acre in water-shot years; the returns to barley include .8 tons of straw per acre @ $25/ton. Source: Wyoming Agricultural Statistics. (It should be noted that the $60 per-ton price for alfalfa represents a $5/ton increase over the $55/ton for mixed grass hay-alfalfa in the baseline case.)
b Net returns per acre represent the return to land and water.
c Weighted by acres and years to give an overall net return per acre.
d This represents an estimate of how water would be applied and expected yields when serious water shortage years are projected.
e This represents an estimate of the value of applying 2 acre-feet per acre to an additional 1850 acres to produce grass-hay at 1.2 tons per acre with a net return of $25 per acre in 8 out of 29 years.
be applied to these additional lands in wet years resulting in a net
return of $25 per acre. This result is equivalent to stating that the
additional water adds an estimated annual average value of $3.19 per
acre to the 3,996 acres currently being irrigated, as shown in Table
V-2.
The net return per acre by crop and water supply condition is the
difference between gross returns and production costs. The composite
net return per acre is obtained by multiplying the net return of each
crop by the proportion of acreage and years of water supply and then
summing over the crops. The total annual net return per acre is
computed to be $50.61 per year. This represents a return to land and
water after payment of production costs and a fee for labor and
management. It represents a $61.90 increase per acre over the current
annual return of -$11.29 shown in Table V-I.
4.0 Benefit-Cost Analysis
This section presents the results of a benefit-cost analysis of
the proposed water development for the Gooseberry Creek watershed.
Table V-3 presents the results of the analysis for a four percent
discount rate, the usual rate approved by the legislature. The
total-cost column of TabJe V-3 are discounted figures representing the
capital construction costs, the operation and maintenance costs through
a 50 year project life, and any necessary land acquisition costs that
would be required to develop that alternative. These costs were
discounted to present them in the same "present value" time frame as the
discounted benefit streams.
53
Table V-3. Benefit-Cost Ratios for Gooseberry Creek Water Development Project (4 Percent Discount Rate - 50 Year Project Life)
Description
8,000 acre-foot active capacity reservoir
Predomi-
~~~~c
Alfalfa
Agricultural Benefits
Secondar~ Benefits
Total Benefits
Total b Costs
$ 5,314,000 $ 4,517,000 $ 9,831,000 $ 7,457,000
B/C Ratio Direct Benefits
0.71
B/C Ratio Direct and Secondary
1.32
a Based upon study entitled Washakie County Economy, An Input/Output Analysis, Bulletin 647, March 1977 by Eugene P. Lewis.
b Includes capital and O&M costs discounted to net present value assuming 50 year life and 2 year construction period.
c Predominant crops grown at elevations less than 5,000 feet. Alfalfa and small grains are included in all crop rotations (See Section 2.0).
The secondary benefits associated with each alternative are based
upon an input-output study of the local economy conducted in 1977 by the
University of Wyoming, Department of Agricultural Economics. The
results of that study show that a $1 direct increase in farm income
results in a total income increase of 85 cents, on the average, in other
sectors of the local economy. This figure was used in computing the
secondary benefit measures in Table V-3.
5.0 Ability To Pay and Project Financing
This portion of the economic analysis examines financing alterna
tives and the ability of Gooseberry Creek irrigators to pay for the
water improvement plan. These estimates reflect the financial aspects
which differ somewhat from the economic benefits described in previous
sections.
5.1 Methodology
The abi 1 i ty-to-pay ana lys is was based upon the same farm-budget
analysis used to generate the economic benefits described in Section
2.0. A typical irrigation unit of 280 acres was assumed as the irriga
tion base for each producer. Typical irrigated crops grown in the
Gooseberry Creek watershed were chosen to represent the "most 1 i kely"
cropping patterns. In addition, a cropping pattern alternative was
developed assuming the "best" possible yields and high value crops could
be grown on these acres. Cropping patterns and yields were derived
separately for irrigated acres above 5,000 feet in elevation and below
5,000 feet. (Climatological and survey data indicate high valued crops
such as sugar beets and corn cannot be successfully grown in the long
run above 5,000 feet.)
55
To es t ;mate the returns for the vari ous crops and cropp; ng pa t
terns, a compu teri zed CROPBUDGET mode 1 was emp 1 oyed us i ng the AGNET
computer system. Crop yields, prices, management practices, input costs
and other necessary data were obtained from producers and agricultural
businesses in the Gooseberry Creek/Worland area. Machinery usage, dep
reciation, repair costs, useful life, etc. are reflected in the budgets.
The first stage of the analysis examined costs and returns on a per
acre basis. Weighting procedures were used to estimate the typical
returns expected per acre from the various crop mixtures, plus or minus
the yield and crop differentials that occur in response to the
water-short and excess-water years anticipated by hydrologic modeling.
Once the returns were estimated on a per acre basis, ability to pay on a
project basis was determined by multiplying the total acreage involved
by the per-acre returns. Through the use of the weighting procedures,
the per-acre averages in the analysis represent all crops grown above
and below 5,000 feet.
Although individual producers may choose a different crop mix or
rota t ion tha n is represe nted in the typ i ca 1 mode 1, a nd have maj or or
minor land development expenses, the model is representative of crops,
yields and necessary land improvements that would exist throughout the
project.
Estimates of ability to pay differ from direct economic benefits
because of the debt structure on land and other reasons. Land debt (or
the opportunity cost of land) was not explicitly addressed in the
economic analysis because it is the same for the 'Ibaseline" and IIwith
project ll scenarios. Since economic benefits were computed by
56
subtracting baseline benefits from with-project benefits, these land
costs cancelled out. In estimating ability to pay, however, land costs
(or debt) must be considered as an expense that must be met by the
operator.
Survey information from producers and several financial institu
tions serving the area was used to estimate land indebtedness. Although
a wide variance exists in the amount of real estate debt among pro
ducers, an average debt of $200 per irrigated acre is typical. Some of
the rea 1 es ta te debt has an ori gi na 1 40 year repaynient hori zon, whi 1 e
other debts are a contract for deed with a shorter time horizon. For
the purpose of this analysis, a 25 year repayment period with a nine
percent effective interest rate was employed.
Another difference between the economic analysis and ability-to-pay
analysis involves the use of so-called "baseline" case. In the economic
ana lys is, benefi ts were computed as the di fference between the "wi th
project" and "baseline" net returns per acre. This procedure results in
a true picture of the incremental economic benefits attributable to the
project. Estimates of ability to pay for water, however, must first
take into account reasonable returns to both land and labor. Since the
baseline analysis shows a current net return of -$11.29 per acre,
operators are not receiving an adequate ($5/hour) return for their labor
and management. Operators would receive a fair return for labor and
management at a baseline return of $0 per acre, so that figure (rather
than -$11.29) was assumed to be the "baseline case" in computing ability
to pay.
A third area where the ability-to-pay analysis differs from the
economic analysis involves the returns attributable to so-called excess
water. This water would be released as "spills" from the reservoir
57
in very wet years. Although this water could be put to economic use in
those years when spills occur, the occurrence of spills is so infrequent
and unpredictable that their benefits are not appropriate for inclusion
in an annual ability-to-pay estimate.
5.2 Ability to Pay
The water development plan assumes that a reservoir is constructed
a t the Upper Gooseberry Creek site wi th 8, 000 acre-feet of act i ve
capacity. This reservoir would serve the 3,996 acres in Gooseberry
Creek watershed that are currently irrigated. The hydrological
simulation of this scenario indicates a serious water shortage would
occur in 7 years of 29 years above 5,000 feet, and 9 years of 29 below
5,000. The abi 1 i ty to pay estimates account for these variances in
water delivery. Because there are no new (adjudicated acres that have
not previously been intensively irrigated) acres brought into
production, a land improvement charge is not assessed. Table V-4
indicates a typical operator would be able to pay an estimated $27.06
per acre for water on an annual basis. Annual ability to pay on a total
project basis for this scenario is estimated at $108,100.
5.3 Financing Alternatives
It appears that the only viable financial alternative for develo
ping the Gooseberry Creek water project in the near future would be some
form of grant and loan from the State of Wyoming. Federal funding for
water projects has been cut back during recent years, and even if
funding were available, the Gooseberry Project would probably not meet
58
Table V-4. Estimated Ability to Pay for the Proposed Development (8,000 acre-foot reservoir)
Present Operation Future Operation Financial Benefits/ Acre
Real Estate Payment/Acre
Ab il i ty to Pay/ Acre
Project Ability to Pay
a See Text.
Acres Irrigated
3,996 3,996
Return Per Acre
b Table V-2, excluding excess water value.
Financial Benefits Per Acre
$47.42
(-$20.36)c
$27.06
Annual Ability to Pay
$108,100
c This represents an annual real estate payment based upon a - $200jacre indebtedness amortized at 9 percent interest for 25 years.
59
federal guidelines since it does not have significant hydroelectric or
flood control benefits that could be used to push its direct benefit
cost ratio in excess of unity.
From the State of Wyoming's perspective, however, the plan is
worthy of cons i dera t; on since the tota 1 benef; ts exceed thei r cos ts .
Table V-5 shows annual costs of the development on a per-acre basis for
various combinations of grants and loans that might be obtained at the
state level to finance the project. The table shows the results of
these calculations assuming loan repayments over a 50 year period at a
four percent annual interest rate. The operator's ability to pay for
thi s plan exceeds the per-acre cost on a 75 percent grant-25 percent
loan basis at a four percent interest rate.
60
Table V-5. Annual Per Acre Construction and O&M Costs for a 50 year Repayment Period at 4% Interest
Portion of cost
Construction O&M Total
100 % Loan
$ 84.36 2.50
$ 86.86
25% Grant 75% Loan
$ 63.27 2.50
$ 65.77
61
50% Grant 50% Loan
$ 42.18 2.50
$ 44.68
75% Grant 25% Loan
$ 21. 09 2.50
$ 23.59
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 Summary
The need to regulate existing water supplies and to provide a
supplementa 1 water supply to the Gooseberry Creek watershed has been
well documented for more than 50 years. This study is a comprehensive
investigation into the possibilities of satisfying the water supply
needs of the water users along Gooseberry Creek.
The study first investigated the potential for managing the cur
rently available water resources by providing storage in the basin.
Eight reservoir sites were investigated, and it was determined that the
best site, based on hydrologic and cost factors, is the Upper Gooseberry
Creek Reservoir site. In order to regulate the flows of Gooseberry
Creek, a reservoir with an active storage capacity of 8,000 acre-feet
would be recommended. The development of such a reservoir would benefit
the water users significantly; however, they would still suffer severe
shortages on an average of one out of three years.
The benefit-cost ratio for total benefits is greater than 1 and it
is shown that the operators have the ability to pay for the project if
they receive a 75% grant and 25% loan from the State at an interest rate
of 4 percent.
62
