Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'rli.,(!tf! 377 <br />uU"'" <br /> <br />GENERAL EFFECTS OF DROUGHT ON VVATER RESOURCES <br /> <br />B15 <br /> <br />I.' <br /> <br />,.1 San GAbnel River near Awso, ;^CO~ <br /> <br />v ~ <br /> <br />lj <br /> <br />1\'fM -1("'4 <br /> <br />112900 <br /> <br />ocr,_'f <br /> <br />Z <br /><t: 1.0 <br />w <br />. <br />. <br />" <br />w <br />., <br />o ., <br />z <br />o <br />" <br />o <br />>- <br />" <br />" <br />o <br />z <br />o <br />" <br />w US <br />o <br />. <br />" <br />w <br />~ <br />~ 1.0 <br />~ <br />- <br />w <br />" <br />o <br />o <br />if ,5 <br />" <br />. <br />w <br />~ <br />o <br />" <br />o <br />o <br />~ <br />. <br />" <br /> <br />"",,- ,armon <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />.-1\1 <br />V V <br /> <br />I <br />N <br /> <br />'-' <br /> <br />'---\. !"\.. Virrn River IJ Virgin, Utah <br /> <br />45--or milan V \ /9/0-54, 1\. 156.~OO (Jef' fI <br /> <br />'Iv..;-vi "'.r-y <br /> <br />I.' <br /> <br />/1 Y"d, R;' b,low a"",l! Oom, Mi,. <br /> <br /> <br />66, !~ I~.J\ <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />1.0 <br /> <br />18~-1954 1A. 5/4 200 acre-ft <br />'~'V\ . <br />'-'"- 1'--. , <br /> <br />\h <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />h <br /> <br />1900 <br /> <br />1950 <br /> <br />1960 <br /> <br />FIGURE 2.- Ratio of ii-year progressive average runoff to long-term mean runoff of six selected streams. <br /> <br />1910 <br /> <br />1920 <br /> <br />1930 <br /> <br />1940 <br /> <br />parison of discharge between streams is difficult to <br />make, For example, as read from the frequency curves, <br />the San Gabriel River during a third of the period <br />of record has had yearly runoff less than 42 percent of <br />its mean runoff, On the other hand, the Virgin River <br />has never had annual runoff as low as 42 percent of its <br />meau runoff and the Rio Grande has had bnt 1 year that <br />low. Yearly runoff, so low in relation to the average <br />that it never or rarely occurs on the Rio Grande or the <br />Virgin River, is common on the San Gabriel River and <br />occurs about a third of the time. These differing slopes <br />arc evidence of streamflow variability (p. B17). <br /> <br />'1 <br /> <br />0"0 Ri"'l "'" R,d I~N.M' . <br /> <br />42- <tal \ mean 19/3-54 14n . 4nr. <br /> <br />oc"~ff <br /> <br />V\f-^v <br /> <br />lw <br /> <br />Rio o,;t'"''' o"~o. <br /> <br />65- "(Jar mBan.f,8~~ 68/ 400 <br />vI) <br /> <br />^ <br />V <br /> <br />ocr8~ft <br />\0 <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br />Brazos River;.' Waco, Texas <br /> <br />, ^ <br />IV <br /> <br />56- ior meon. " <br />'vJ <br /> <br />(Vll <br /> <br />1899-/954 n " I 849koo OCTtI-!,/ <br />~U V " <br /> <br />1'1 <br /> <br />1\ <br />'-J <br /> <br />1890 <br /> <br />1900 <br /> <br />1910 <br /> <br />1920 <br /> <br />1930 <br /> <br />1940 <br /> <br />'950 <br /> <br />1960 <br /> <br />ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL RUNOFF <br />The preceding discussion and accompanying illus- <br />trations indicate the effect of drought on six selected <br />streams. But what happened on the thousands oT other <br />streams in the Southwest, or even at other points on <br />the six streams! Fewer than a hundred records in <br />the entire Southwest are oT suitable length and quality <br />Tor similar 'analysis. If these were presented in tables, <br />diagrams, and text, as was done for the six records, the <br />additional information would detail only the particu- <br />lar streams included. Little would be added to knowl- <br />edge about runoff in ungaged streams or about broad <br />trends unless general conclusions could be drawn about <br />