My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09117
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09117
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:51:21 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:28:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8102
Description
Arkansas River Hydrology
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
10/1/1970
Author
Colorado DNR
Title
Preliminary Report on Travel Time and Transit Losses Arkansas River October 1970
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />OJJ2J3 <br /> <br />SECTION V <br /> <br />TRANS I T LOSS ES <br /> <br />When discussing transit losses in a stream, it is necessary to define <br />terminology. The main problem in communications regarding transit losses <br />during a reservoir run is whether or not one Is speaking of the total stream <br />loss, most of which would exist whether or not "new water" was being trans- <br />ported down the river, or whether One is speaking of the incremental loss <br />imposed on the river as a result of the transportation of the new water. <br /> <br />In canal studies, for Instance, most work is aimed towards total canal <br />losses, and when a new user on a canal wishes to transport his project water <br />through the canal, he is generally charged the same percentage as those al- <br />ready in the ditch. This is an administrative and policy matter decided by <br />the ditch officials. However, It is well-known that in many ditches the <br />more water carried in the ditch, the more water there is for storage and <br />application and there is less transit loss as a percent of water carried. <br />Obviously, this is not always the case because new water carried in the <br />ditch might result in some new permeable areas being wetted. <br /> <br />In regard to this Arkansas River study, it is the writer's op,nlon that <br />One should deal primarily with incremental losses rather than with the total <br />losses for the stream. The final determination of this, however, might very <br />well be the subject of high level administrative decisions and/or litigation. <br />There most certainly are arguments for both cases. Obviously, if incremental <br />losses are charged to those transporting water in the river, the losses would <br />be substantially less than if they were charged with a percentage reflecting <br />the total loss in the stream. If the percentage of loss representing the full <br />river flow were to be applied to the foreign water being transported, the per- <br />centage would always be larger than if the incremental losses were charged. <br /> <br />Some of the numerous factors affecting, to some degree, transit losses <br />of reservoir runs in a natural channel are: <br /> <br />Length of reach used for transporting water <br />Natural flow in river <br />Size of reservoir release <br />Ratio of release flow to "native" flow <br />Rising or fall ing river at time of release <br />Rai n <br />Unaccountable fluctuations in stream flow <br />Diurnal Variation <br />Slope of river channel <br />Roughness of channel <br />Hydraulic radius of channel <br />Elevation and slope of water table in relation to river <br />Fluvial geomorphology (geology, degree of sinuosity, etc) <br />Degree of sealing of river channel <br />Temperature of air and water <br />Humidity and vapor pressure <br />Wind velocity <br />Radiation and exposure to radiation <br />Unauthorized diversion <br />Increased legal diversions <br /> <br />32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.