Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000835 <br /> <br />-17- <br /> <br />9. The llinderlider Plan (Cont' d) <br /> <br />Ditches along the main ri vel" in Hater Di str ict 12, for which Mversion <br />reoords are J."'l.Habll3, probably ~re disrege.rded because thei," diver- <br /> <br /> <br />sions lar@81y ~der priorities of early date, reflect curl"ent ne3ds <br /> <br /> <br />rather than variations in available water supplies. It may be that di- <br /> <br /> <br />versions of Pueblo ~!e.ter ~rorks ditches were omitted because for munici- <br /> <br /> <br />pal purposes rather than irrigation, and of Collier ditch, beoause large- <br /> <br /> <br />ly from return seepage rather than from the river. However, along the <br /> <br /> <br />river stretch covered by the 10 selected ditches, from the Bessemer ditoh <br /> <br /> <br />to Caddoe. Reservoir. m Water Di striots 14 and 17, there are five others <br /> <br /> <br />(nalllely, Hest Pueblo, Booth, Excelsior and Colorado. in District 14, and <br /> <br /> <br />Ft. Llfon storage, in District 17) for which 1943 and historic average <br /> <br /> <br />diversion records are available. which might have been included, and <br /> <br /> <br />which v.ould seem to be neoessary when determining the total upstream di- <br /> <br /> <br />versions along the selected stretch of river upstream from Caddoa. <br /> <br /> <br />Had the comparisons been based, in eaoh instanoe. on reoords <br /> <br /> <br />oompiled from Daily Reports, and on the total diversions of all fifteen <br /> <br /> <br />ditches along the ri,ver upstream from Caddo!>. in Water Distriots 14 and <br /> <br /> <br />17, then instead of greater-then-average diversions by 10,966 A.F. in <br /> <br /> <br />1943 per the Hinderlider Comparison (Table 2), the showing would be one <br /> <br /> <br />of less-than-average diversions by 16,303 A.F., as shom beloWI <br />