WSP09117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OJll219 48 It will be noted that the losses as determined under this study are somewhat lower than are presently being used by the State Engineer, and that they vary with the magnitude of the reservoir release and the natural flow at Canon City. It will further be noted that the losses to be applied to the reservoir runs are somewhat lower than those suggested by former State Engineer Hinderl ider In his 1938 studies. The bank storage and evaporation losses as presented in this report were based upon the" Incremental loss theory" rather than the "prorated theory". The prorated theory Is based upon distributing the overall river losses In accordance with the ratio between the reservoir run and the natural river flow. On the other hand, the incremental loss theory is based upon the assumption that losses charged to the reservoir release should be those river losses which are a direct result of the additional reservoir water being added to the river flow. For typical releases, for instance, the prorated loss theory would result In evapora- tion losses of. some three times that determined by the incremental loss method. Mr.. Hinderl Ider used the prorated loss method. This Is the primary difference between Mr. Hinderlider's early determinations and those found under this study in terms of total percentage loss to be appl ied to a reservoir run. During the course of this 1970 study it became apparent that Mr. Hinderlider had great in- sight into the character of the Arkansas River and substantial practical know- ledge regarding the allocation of losses. This report does not pretend to be the final authority on travel time and trans It. losses on the Arkansas River. This report does summarize the exlstiJ;lg knowledge and experience on the subject and presentS a pragmatic method of estimating travel times and transit losses on the upper Arkansas River for administrative purposes. The current transit loss study being conducted by the U. S. Geological Survey will provide new and additional basic data ~nd Interpretations for further refinement of the losses to be charged to "foreign" and reservoir water being transported down the Arkansas River. However, this work cannot be in- corporated into this report at this time. We recommend that the criteria, nomographics, and techniques presented in this report be used for the 1971 Arkansas River reservoir releases, and that studies continue On the Arkansas River to better define the data, logic, and procedures for charging losses. We also bel ieve that a "river loss" seminar should.be held under the auspices of the Office of the State Engineer before the 1971 irrigation season, and before the U.S. Geological Survey commences the next round of studies and field measurements. We are of the opinion