Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />f"'\ <br /> <br />(l). <br /> <br />,...., <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />, , <br /> <br />l:'- <br />co <br />C") <br />.-( <br />(_":J <br />(:J <br /> <br />expected. It may be, however, that a suooession of low <br />years such asocourred between 1950 and 1954, inclusiv( <br />would have caused this same kind of situation under pre~1937 <br />oonditions.The negative departure which occurred on the <br />Rio Grande sohedule in 1952 was not unusual. Under the <br />same combination of years wi th the same regimen of watel' <br />supply, a negative departure in the same order could have <br />been expected under pre~lg37 conditions. <br />Recommendations <br /> <br />It isreoommended that: <br />1. More study "be made of the Conejos to determine the reason <br />for tncreased depletions along it. <br />2. Seepage runs be made at appropriate times on the COl,ejos <br />each year, and that measuremonts bG made o~ MoIntiro <br />Spril\qs, Dia.mond Sprinqs, . and Sprinq Creek: <luring the <br />same periods. <br />3; More study be made to determine the extant of the w\th~ <br />drawalsfromthe artesian flow in the Southwest and <br />Southeast areas beyond what they were during the Upper <br />Rio Grande Joint Investigation. <br />4. Studies be made to determine the extent to which <br />increased withdrawals fro~ artesian flow in the SQ~t~~~ <br />and Southeast areasma:;'have affected the artesian ~<ln.. <br />tribution to the lower reaches of the Conejos. <br /> <br />~ 22 - <br /> <br />