Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"J ' <br />iJ. ,I <br /> <br />175 <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />c. Changes In farm practice resulting in higher consumptive use <br />and brought on by more rel iable water supply, principally In <br />the area served by the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. <br /> <br />2. The droulh of the 1930's was more severe on the plains than In the <br />mountains. and seems to mark the beginning of a long-term trend of diminishing <br />flows at Julesburg. The 1941-1950 period is the only period following 1930 <br />that exceeded the 1912-1930 flow, and this was primarily because of 1942 which <br />was the highest flow year of record. <br /> <br />3. Flow at Julesburg hus decreased from the 14-year <br />implementation of the South Platte River Compact in 1923. <br />the Compact on the slate 1 lne runoff is not clear from the <br />probably overshadowed by other factors. <br /> <br />period prior to <br />The effect of <br />diagram and is <br /> <br />4. The effect of heavy pumping of the South Platte alluvium since the <br />early 1950's on the flow at Julesburg has combined with the effect of the <br />1954-1956 drouth to sharply turn the line to the right. The 1 ine swings up- <br />ward again with the advent of the C-BT Project and the end of the drouth. to <br />a rate higher than the long-term average, but less than the pre-Compact <br />period. Indications point towards the Jule<;burg flow just holding Its own. <br /> <br />5. The importat ion of west slope water with attendant carry-over storage <br />facilities combined vdth the development of storage within the basin has helped <br />to stabi] ize the water supply, resulting in a higher level of water use. A <br />major factor influencing water use has been the rapid population growth of the <br />metropolitan Denver area and of other communities in the South Platte Basin. <br />This grovlth [<; shown in the following table. <br /> <br />POPULATION GROWTH IN THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN <br /> <br />County <br />(I) <br /> <br />1900 <br />(2) <br /> <br />140,500 <br />6,150 <br />3,120 <br />9,306 <br />6,200 <br />4,100 <br />12,168 <br />3,268 <br />16,808 <br />3.292 <br />971 <br /> <br />205,883 <br /> <br />Denver <br />Boulder <br />Dougl as <br />Jefferson <br />Arapahoe <br />Adams <br />Larimer <br />Morgan <br />Weld <br />Logan <br />Sedgwi ck <br /> <br />Total <br /> <br />% Increase in Total <br /> <br />Relative Annl. <br />Water Use in <br />Acre-Feet at <br />100 gpcd <br /> <br />23.000 <br /> <br />Relative Annl. <br />Depict Ion In AF <br /> <br />10,000 <br /> <br />1920 <br />(3) <br /> <br />256.491 <br />11,006 <br />3,517 <br />14,400 <br />13,766 <br />14.430 <br />27,872 <br />16,124 <br />54,059 <br />18,427 <br />1,,207 <br /> <br />434,299 <br /> <br />110 <br /> <br />48,500 <br /> <br />24,000 <br /> <br />1940 <br />(1+) <br /> <br />322,416 <br />12,958 <br />3,496 <br />30,725 <br />32,150 <br />22,481 <br />35,539 <br />17,214 <br />63.7"7 <br />18,370 <br />5,294 <br /> <br />56'+. 390 <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />63,000 <br /> <br />30.000 <br /> <br />1950 <br />(5) <br /> <br />415,786 <br />19.999 <br />3,507 <br />55,687 <br />52,125 <br />40,234 <br />43,554 <br />18,074 <br />67,504 <br />17,187 <br />5.095 <br /> <br />1960 <br />(6) <br /> <br />493,887 <br />37,718 <br />4,816 <br />127.520 <br />113,426 <br />120,296 <br />53,343 <br />21,192 <br />]2,344 <br />20,302 <br />4,242 <br /> <br />1964 <br />(]) <br /> <br />524,000 <br />46,000 <br />5,700 <br />170,000 <br />137,000 <br />151,500 <br />63,000 <br />21,300 <br />77.500 <br />20,600 <br />4,250 <br /> <br />737,752 1,069.086 1,220,850 <br /> <br />82,600 <br /> <br />40,000 <br /> <br />3 I <br /> <br />120,000 <br /> <br />60,000 <br /> <br />45 <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />137,000 <br /> <br />68,000 <br />