- Reclamation
- Projects & Facilities
- Projects
- Smith Fork Project
Smith Fork Project
State: Colorado
Region: Upper Colorado Basin Region
Related Documents
Smith Fork Project History (37 KB)
Related Facilities
Related Links
Gunnison River at Delta, Colorado (USGS)
Reclamation's Upper Colorado Region Water Operations
Reclamation Water Information System
Mountain Snowpack Maps for Colorado, Rio Grande, and Arkansas Rivers
Palmer Drought Index Map
Explanation of the Palmer Drought Index
General
Flows of Smith Fork, Iron, Mud, and Alkali Creeks are regulated and utilized by the Smith Fork Project in west-central Colorado. The project, about 30 miles southeast of Delta, Colorado, supplements the irrigation water supply for approximately 8,200 acres in Delta and Montrose counties and provides a full water supply for 1,423 acres of land previously not irrigated. Construction features of the project include Crawford Dam and Reservoir, Smith Fork Diversion Dam, Smith Fork Feeder Canal, Aspen Canal, Clipper Canal, and recreation facilities.
History
Delta County, along with most of western Colorado, was originally inhabited by the Ute Indians. Early settlement of the area was retarded by hostility between the Utes and the immigrants. In 1881, a compromise agreement was reached between the Federal Government and the Utes which required the Indians to locate in the Uintah Reservation in the Territory of Utah. After this agreement, settlement of the area progressed rapidly. Most of the impetus of the initial settlement period was provided by discoveries of rich deposits of gold, silver, and other minerals in the mountainous areas near the Continental Divide. Agricultural development proceeded at a slower rate but was much more uniform and stable. Farms were developed along the valleys, towns were established near the mines and the agricultural communities, and construction of railroads to the trade and mining centers was begun.
Construction
Construction was begun on Crawford Dam in 1960 and on all other major features in 1961. All construction was completed in 1962. An improved irrigation supply permits new lands to be irrigated and permits better crop yields on lands previously inadequately watered. Predominant crops include alfalfa, grass hay, pasture, barley, oats, wheat, and corn. Feed production is used for livestock, primarily cattle and sheep. Recreation at Crawford Reservoir (http://www.recreation.gov/detail.cfm?ID=50) is administered by the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and consists of fishing, boating, and camping. Visitor days in 1996 totaled 109,704. In 1997, the State of Colorado and Bureau of Reclamation upgraded facilities at Crawford State Park to include accessible features for people with disabilities. There are 45 campsites with hookups and 21 without. Showers and flush toilets are available. A fishing trail with platforms and an accessible dock are also available. Although there is no specific reservoir capacity assigned for flood control, the Smith Fork Project has provided an accumulated $14,000 in flood control benefits from 1950 to 1999. When Congressional hearings for the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) took place in 1956, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, the learned and eloquent former University of Chicago economist, took offense at the notion of paying for reclamation projects on so-called `high-elevation, low-value` farmlands which were doomed to never grow more than cattle forage. The Smith Fork Project in the West Elk foothills of west-central Colorado, sitting at an average elevation of 6300 feet, was such a project. Watering these high desert farms with expensive Federal reclamation projects was a wasteful investment of taxpayers` dollars, claimed Douglas, for even after irrigation participating project lands such as Smith Fork`s would not be worth more than a few hundred dollars an acre. The irrigation projects often cost over $2,000 an acre (with interest). To CRSP opponents like Douglas, this was a poor use of taxpayers` money and constituted heavily subsidized agriculture.(1) Western legislators and local water proponents such as Colorado Congressman Wayne Aspinall and Crawford rancher Leslie Savage were well aware of the law of the arid West, however, which said that one never by-passes the opportunity to procure water. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 (which apportioned Colorado River flows between basin states) and the fact that Southern California had already received its share of Reclamation projects employing lower basin water, dictated that that opportunity was now - 1956. Water was owed upper basin states such as Aspinall`s Colorado, so as point man for the region, he took the water - took it in the form of the eventual hard-fought passage in 1956 of the $1.5 billion CRSP bill which also provided for controversial irrigation projects such as Smith Fork.(2) Smith Fork Project lands sit 73 miles southeast of Grand Junction, Colorado, and 60 miles west of the continental divide outside of the small town of Crawford in Delta County (1990 population: 221). The 8,770 acres of mostly irrigated pasture and alfalfa is surrounded by a west-central Colorado setting filled with prominent natural features. To the east, the gently rolling Smith Fork farm lands give way to the majestic peaks of the West Elk Mountains whose snowmelt fills area streams. To the south and west, the main stem of the Gunnison River cuts a chasm thousands of feet deep, forming the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument. The landscape to the north includes Grand Mesa and the North Fork Valley and its fruit orchards, which are irrigated by the Reclamation-managed flows of the North Fork of the Gunnison River and its Paonia Project (also a CRSP participating project).(3) The Smith Fork Project`s main features include the Crawford Dam, which is located on Iron Creek, itself a small tributary (average annual flow: 12,200 af) of the project`s namesake Smith Fork of the Gunnison River. The Smith Fork`s flows are the prime supplier of the project and annually average 32,000 af. The stream is diverted into the Crawford Reservoir by the Smith Fork Diversion Dam and Feeder Canal. The Crawford Reservoir stores and regulates the flows of Smith Fork, Iron Creek, and other small tributaries and private irrigation ditches from which users draw their supply. The remainder of the water stock is released to the 5.8-mile Aspen Canal for delivery to additional private ditches. The Crawford Dam and Reservoir are located one mile south of Crawford, while project farms lie mostly on lands on the other side of town to the north.(4) Due to an average elevation of approximately 6300 feet, a growing season of only 137 days, and annual precipitation of a scant 10.5 inches a year, Crawford farmers are primarily relegated to growing winter feed for the area cattle industry such as alfalfa, hay, corn, and barley, as well as providing pasturage for their own livestock. The area is comprised of no high-grade, Class 1 farmland and of only 30% Class 2 lands. As a result, the intensive, high-value, irrigated agriculture such as that which takes place nearby in the North Fork and Grand Valleys is not possible here.(5) No evidence of a human presence in the West Elk foothills existed until the Ute Indians migrated into western Colorado from the Great Basin after 1600. The Utes were nomadic and agressively territorial, singularly occupying the Colorado intermountain region for over two hundred years but for the opening of sporadic mountain mining camps in the late 1800`s. Even so, their presence delayed large-scale white settlement in the region until driven on to reservations in southwestern Colorado and Utah in 1881.(6) The first European sojourns into the Crawford vicinity and the North Fork lowlands just to the north and west were undertaken by two Spanish parties in the 1760`s and `70`s. The Juan de Rivera expedition came into the region looking for gold between 1761 and 1765 but received disappointing reports from the Utes whom they traded with in the Delta area. Padres Francisco Dominguez and Silvestre Escalante also passed nearby, probably crossing the North Fork of the Gunnison at Hotchkiss while searching for a feasible route from Santa Fe to Monterey.(7) Mexican independence effectively opened up these lands to American fur traders beginning in 1821. The river valleys of the area such as the Gunnison, its North Fork, the Uncompahgre, and the Colorado were found to be efficient trade routes by the trappers, with the high country offering plentiful hunting grounds. The Delta area served as the site of Fort Robidoux, a vital trade post linking the more populated New Mexico to the northern trapping grounds.(8) A Federal presence first appeared in west-central Colorado in the 1850`s when the Fremont and Gunnison expeditions attempted to locate mining opportunities and transportation routes in the area, and, after a delay due to the Civil War, again in the 1870`s when United States Geological Survey (USGS) parties mapped the area. Ferdinand Hayden, in particular, was responsible for much of the understanding of the West Elk region.(9) Once the remaining Ute population was relocated to reservations in 1881, white settlement of the region picked up. Early commerce was based primarily on the search for valuable minerals. In the West Elk high country above Crawford, towns such as Tincup, Irwin, and Gothic quickly sprang up, played out their strikes - usually silver in this area - and then faded away. After this period the region turned to the more stable farming and livestock raising which helped develop towns. Delta, Montrose, Paonia, and Grand Junction appeared on the scene at this time. The land around Crawford was mostly public land used for grazing large herds of cattle and sheep in the summer, although much of these lands were soon purchased by ranchers and turned into smaller parcels. By the turn-of-the-century, the construction of railroads through nearby towns like Delta enabled farmers, especially the nearby fruitgrowers of the North Fork Valley, to more easily deliver their product to market. Ranchers in the higher, colder Crawford area, though, mostly provided for themselves, growing winter feed for primarily their own livestock.(10) The Crawford area landscape has long been criss-crossed by numerous private ditches and dotted with small reservoirs, but still incurred late season water shortages. Area streams were over-appropriated so farms without senior water rights often went dry in the late months when water was most needed. The lack of late season water and the short growing season sometimes allowed for only one pasture crop cutting. This limited area ranchers in the amount of livestock they could maintain. Early local water development proponents, men such as Leslie Savage, pointed out that supplemental, regulated irrigation could allow for up to three cuttings per season, as well as open up new lands.(11) A comprehensive, state-wide investigation of the feasibility of irrigation projects on Colorado intermountain agricultural lands took place from 1936-38. Reclamation engineer Frank C. Merriell was hired by the State of Colorado to conduct the survey. Original feasibility studies of the Crawford area lumped it in with the North Fork, or Paonia Project, being planned for a nearby valley. These initial investigations from 1936-38 discussed damsites in the Upper Smith Fork Basin which would be able to serve all the lands below without building a canal system, but all prospective damsites were rejected due to prohibitively expensive embankment and foundation construction costs.(12) In 1947, at the behest of Crawford area farmers like Leslie Savage, Reclamation reinitiated feasibility investigations of the Smith Fork region. An alternative damsite along side a hogback one mile above the town of Crawford was deemed feasible. Although this site would require an expanded canal system, bringing the total cost of the Smith Fork Project to approximately $3.3 million - a figure that was beyond the repayment capability of the Crawford Water Conservancy District (CWCD) - an alternative repayment scheme which would make the project affordable for area ranchers was in the offing.(13) Being formulated at this juncture, was a huge, comprehensive, basin-wide plan for the Upper Colorado River that outlined the future development of the river`s water and power resources. The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), as it was called, included four main dams along the Colorado and its tributaries that would generate electrical energy and store the river`s wildly fluctuating flows. It was planned that energy revenue from these `cash register` dams would help pay for several, smaller, localized irrigation projects in the upper basin. These `participating projects,` as they were called, included the Smith Fork Project.(14) Engineered by local congressman and longtime reclamation champion, Wayne Aspinall, the CRSP and its participating projects was authorized on April 11, 1956. The CRSP`s total cost of an estimated $1.5 billion made it Reclamation`s most expensive undertaking ever and the subject of pointed criticism by project opponents. The participating projects, too, drew fire for their heavy subsidization. Projects such as Smith Fork were deemed worthless high-altitude, low-value irrigation projects that grew nothing more valuable than grass for what was already a national beef surplus.(15) In spite of the acrimony surrounding passage of the CRSP, Smith Fork farmers now had a water project they could afford. Sharing in the power revenues of dams such as Glen Canyon and Flaming Gorge meant that the CWCD now only had to pay for approximately $860,000 of the $3.3 million project. The Upper Colorado River Development Fund picked up the rest of the tab (recreation, fish, and wildlife interests also repaid small amounts).(16) Construction funds were not appropriated for the Smith Fork Project until 1960, at which point bids were opened for what was to become a $4.43 million job. Construction activities at Smith Fork were assigned to the Construction Engineer at the nearby, and as yet unfinished, Paonia Project, Paul Fetzner. Robert Jennings was the Project Manager. In fact, the same main contractor that was still in the process of building Paonia Dam, Bud King Construction Company, was also awarded construction of the Crawford Dam. Their low bid of $1.93 million allowed them to begin construction in October, 1960. Bud King was also selected to build the earthworks and structures for the Aspen Canal, which they started work on in April, 1961. As work was finished at Paonia, equipment and personnel moved to Crawford. Having submitted the low bid for the Smith Fork Diversion Dam and Feeder Canal, the Riverside Corporation began construction in August, 1961.(17) Bud King Construction finished construction of the Crawford Dam two years later in October, 1962. The zoned earthfill structure is 162 feet high and 580 feet long with a volume of 1,006,000 cu-yds. The uncontrolled overflow spillway is on the left abutment of the dam and has a design capacity of 1,400 cfs. The outlet works in the right abutment carries water through a 34-inch diameter steel pipe controlled by four 2.25-foot-square high pressure gates. Maximum discharge capacity to Aspen Canal is 125 cfs. The 14,395 af Crawford Reservoir formed by Crawford Dam covers a surface area of 406 acres.(18) Located about three miles northeast of Crawford, the Smith Fork Diversion Dam and Feeder Canal was built by Riverside Corporation to convey a portion of the stream`s flow into the reservoir. The diversion dam is at the head of the feeder canal and consists of a concrete ogee weir and embankment wings. The dam stands 10 feet high, has a weir crest length of 34 feet, and a total crest length of 790 feet. The structure has a diversion capacity of 80 cfs.(19) The earth-lined Aspen Canal begins at the dam and stretches mostly northerly for a length of 5.8 miles, feeding private ditches and small creeks from which users draw their supply. The canal, also dug by Bud King Construction, has a bottom width of 10 feet and an initial capacity of 60 cu-ft-sec. It was finished in April, 1962.(20) At Smith Fork Project dedication ceremonies at Crawford Reservoir the next spring, on April 20, 1963, amidst chilled water-skiers demonstrating their skills on the half-filled reservoir and the local high school band blaring away, Reclamation Commissioner Floyd Dominy honored long-time, local water backer Leslie Savage as the `Father of the Smith Fork Project.`Wayne Aspinall, the `Father of the CRSP,` looked on proudly as well.(21)
Plan
Crawford Dam is on Iron Creek, a tributary of the Smith Fork about 1 mile south of Crawford, Colorado. The Crawford Reservoir regulates flows of Iron Creek and its tributaries as well as the surplus flows of the Smith Fork of the Gunnison River, diverted to the reservoir by the feeder canal. Small quantities of reservoir storage water are released to Iron Creek and diverted by several small private ditches. The remainder is released to Aspen Canal for conveyance to private ditches for distribution. Some of the storage releases through Aspen Canal replace former direct flow diversions from Smith Fork, permitting additional direct flow diversions for project land higher on the stream. Crawford Dam is an earthfill structure 162 feet high and 580 feet long, with a volume of 1,006,000 cubic yards. The uncontrolled overflow spillway is in the left abutment of the dam and has a capacity of 1,400 cubic feet per second. The outlet works in the right abutment of the dam carries water through a 34-inch-diameter steel pipe controlled by four 2.25-foot-square high-pressure gates. Maximum discharge capacity to Aspen Canal is 125 cubic feet per second. Crawford Reservoir has a total capacity of 14,395 acre-feet and an active capacity of 14,064 acre-feet. The reservoir has a surface area of 406.2 acres. Smith Fork Diversion Dam, at the head of Smith Fork Feeder Canal, consists of a concrete ogee weir and embankment wings. The dam is about 3 miles northeast of Crawford, stands 10 feet above streambed, has a total crest length of 790 feet, and a weir crest length of 34.6 feet. Diversion capacity of the structure is 80 cubic feet per second. In the vicinity of Crawford, the earth-lined Smith Fork Feeder Canal originates at Smith Fork Diversion Dam and runs southwesterly to Crawford Reservoir. The 2.4-mile-long canal has an initial capacity of 80 cubic feet per second. Aspen Canal heads at Crawford Dam and runs 5.8 miles in a northerly direction. The canal has an initial capacity of 125 cubic feet per second. Clipper Canal feeds from Aspen Canal and runs to the west a distance of about 0.5 mile. The initial capacity of the canal is 60 cubic feet per second. Operation and maintenance of the project was turned over to the Crawford Water Conservancy District on January 1, 1964.
Contact
Contact
Title: Area Office ManagerOrganization: Western Colorado Area Office - Grand Junction
Address: 445 W. Gunnison Ave., Suite 221
City: Grand Junction, CO 81501
Phone: 970-248-0600
Owner
Title: Public Affairs OfficerOrganization: Upper Colorado Regional Office
Address: 125 South State Street, Rm 7102
City: Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1102
Fax: 801-524-5499
Phone: 801-524-3774
Contact
Organization: Crawford Water Conservancy DistrictAddress: 183 HWY 92
City: Crawford, CO 81415
Phone: 970-921-4775
