Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS <br />ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS <br />20118 BRYA.NT STREET <br />DENVEA. COLORADO !S01H <br /> <br />C,OlORAOO WATER CONSERVATION BOARQ <br />8a STATE CErm1lfML BUILDING <br />1313 SHERi,W~ STRCET <br />lJr;i\'[p., CCLOi(;i:JD 80203 <br /> <br />MUlau <br /> <br />13 November 1970 <br /> <br />TILIPHONE <br />4$".e:l.OI <br /> <br />I , <br /> <br />Mr. Clarence Kuiper, State Engineer of Colorado <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1845 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />Letter of Transmi ttal <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Kuiper: <br /> <br />In accordance with your instructions, and our contract <br />dated June 10, 1970, we have made detailed field and office <br />investigations aimed at determining the travel time and <br />transit losses of reservoir releases for foreign water trans- <br />ported down the main stem of the Arkansas River. Our report, <br />entitled "Prel iminary Report On Travel Time and Transit Losses, <br />Ark;lnsas River," is attached. <br /> <br />-,., <br /> <br />In the course of our work the May 2, 1970, Twin Lakes <br />release was closely observed from Twin Lakes to the Colo- <br />rado Canal, a distance of approximately 162 miles covering <br />a time span of nearly 50 hours. Office studies involved <br />a detailed analysis of stage discharge readings at some 27 <br />points along the river. ,Later approximately 30 reservoir <br />release runs were studied, using historic gaging station <br />records. In addition to this utilization of actual stream <br />records, we studied Mr. M. C. Hinderlider's 1938 report <br />and G. F. Lacey's report of 1941, and we made independent <br />evaluations of some two dozen potential river loss parameters. <br /> <br />The report describes the present method of charging <br />river losses, which we term the "pro-rated theory." It is our <br />opinion that losses to reservoir rUnS should be charged on the <br />"incremental loss theory" which would charge the water being <br />transported only for the additional loss resulting for the <br />imposition of the additional water on the normal river flow. <br />The incremental loss theory appears to be more logical. It <br />does result in lower losses being charged than under the pro- <br />rated method. <br /> <br />Our analysis and report presents river losses which are <br />reasonably close to those proposed by Mr. Hinderlider in 1938 <br />and to those whiCh are presently being used by the Divisional <br />Engineer for total river losses. However, utilizing the incre- <br />mental loss method results in a significantly lower water loss <br />charge against the reservoir water, particularly for small re- <br />leases on stream conditions where the natural river flow is <br />