My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10396
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10396
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:58:42 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:18:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8056
Description
Drought Preparedness
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
1/1/1964
Author
USGS
Title
General Effects of Drought on Water Resources on the Southwest
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />!\1'r'l<!l"l <br />l~ :) ,~.;; Ii <br /> <br />GENERAL EFFECTS OF DROUGHT ON WATER RESOURCES <br /> <br />B3 <br /> <br />sources is"likely to pass through the soil before doing so, <br />Most of the precipitation in the Southwest gets only as <br />far as the soil zone and then returns to the atmosphere; <br />only a small proportion of it becomes ground water or <br />surface water. <br />Satisfactory techniques for measuring and recording <br />fluctuations in the volume of soil water have not been <br />developed for areas larger than small experimental <br />plots. Thus, by contrast with fluctuations in amount <br />of ground water and especially of surface water, quan- <br />titative data concerning soil water are practically non- <br />existent. Qualitative data on the effects of drought <br />upon soil water are based for the most part upon the <br />effects upon the vegetation whose supply of soil water is <br />derived directly from precipitation. <br />A description by Bonnen and Ward (1956, p, 2-6) <br />of the effects of drought upon rangeland as shown by <br />data collected within a hundred-mile radius of San <br />Angelo, Tex., is applicable also to most of the western <br />half of Texas and probably to other areas in the South- <br />west drought area: <br /> <br />Rainfall records for Sonora. Ozona, and San Angelo reveal <br />subnormal precipitation 8 of the 11 years from 1943 through <br />1953. The average rainfall for this ll-year period was 15.6 <br />inches at San Angelo, as compared with 24 inches for the pre- <br />ceding ll-year period aDd a SO-year normal of almost 20 inches. <br />Rainfall during the 8 dry years averaged almost 7 inches below <br />normal. The accumulated deficit at San Angelo over the 1l~ <br />~real' period Is the equivalent of 60 inches of rainfall. <br />The entire western half of Texas has been affected severely. <br />Over much of the area, very little new grass was produced <br />during the 3-year period [1951-53]. Clipping studies at the <br />Ranch Experiment Station near Sonora show 20 pounds per <br />acre of air-dry grass produced in 1951 and none in 1952 or 1953. <br />During the latter part of this period, ranges have been relatively <br />bare of lJalatable grass. Range feed has been mainly dry <br />tobosa grnss, browse, bUrned pear and sotoI plus some annual <br />weeds. Year-round feeding has been common on many <br />ranches * . * <br />Livestocl{ numbers reached a peak in 1943 just as the long <br />period of dry years began and have decreased about 50 percent <br />during the ll-year period. The only interruption in this trend <br />tame following the one wet year (1949). An associated factor <br />contributing to the upturn in numbers was the sharp rise in <br />prices following 1049, due largel;y to the outbreak of war in <br />Korea. Anticipating a continuation of the peak prices prevail- <br />ing in the spring of 1951-, most ranchmen made strenuous efforts <br />to maintain and, in some cases, to increase stoclting rates despite <br />the rapidly decreasing range feed supply. <br />Although ranges deteriorated during the drought, data in- <br />(Heating the nature and extent of deteriorating of the range <br />are SCRn'e und difficult to obtain. One crude measure of the <br />effect of the drought on forage yields is the trend in livestock <br />numbers and in the size of the feed bill. The extreme bareness <br />of the rnnge during the winter and spring of 1954 suggests that <br />adjustments in livestock numbers did not keep step with the <br />decline in forage yields. Further evidence of this lack of ad- <br />justment is the large amount of feed purchased from the fall <br />of 1950 to the fall of 1953. An average of $25 was spent for <br /> <br />feed per animal unit on 45 ranchoo which were well distributed <br />over the area most affected by the drought, while the normal <br />expenditure is approximately $3. <br />The quality of the forage on the range, as indicated by plant <br />composition, also deteriorated. Range management specialists <br />base the classification on range conditions mainly on the extent <br />to which climax species make up the plant population. Climax <br />species are those species of plants that are most productive <br />under a given set of soil and climatic conditions. Excellent <br />range is made up of 75 to 100 percent of plants of the climax <br />species. Good range contains 50--75 percent; fair range 25-50 <br />percent and poor range 0-25 percent plants of the climax <br />species. According to studies made on 8 of these 45 ranches <br />by the Soil Conservation Service, the general condition of- the <br />range was "fair" in 1950 and "poor" by 1954. <br />At the Texas Range Station near Barnhart, where range <br />management practices are being studied intensively, it was <br />reported in Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin <br />No. 786 that forage production was extremely low and plant <br />density was seriously reduced during the low rainfall period <br />1951-53. The composition of the forage also was changed. <br />High death losses occurred in an grasses except tobosa grass. <br />At the same time, invader plants, such as mesquite trees and <br />prickly pear, increased in number. These changes occurred in <br />ungrazed exclosutes but not to the same extent as they did <br />in heavily grazed pas-tures. <br /> <br />California receives most of its precipitation during <br />the winter, and its dependence on direct precipitation <br />for cultivated crops is therefore less than in Texas, <br />Nevertheless, soil moisture derived directly from pre- <br />cipitation is an important part of the water resources <br />in California, as a supplement to the surface and ground <br />water applied to irrigated lands and as the only source <br />of water for forests and rangelands, There are also ex- <br />tensive areas of nonirrigated farming, chiefly of grai!1s, <br />although the aggregate is small in comparison with the <br />acreage of irrigated crops, Yearly yields from non- <br />irrigated farming are related to yearly precipitation, <br />but the relation is rather obscure because the timing <br />of precipitation in relation to crop maturity is an im- <br />portant element governing yield (p. B47). <br />A more detailed statement concerning the effect of <br />drought upon soil moisture would require data on the <br />water-storage capability and the fluctuations in storage <br />in the soil; these in turn would require data on the <br />physical and chemical character of the soil, which may <br />vary widely from place to place on a single farm. It <br />may be presumed that fluctuations in soil moisture at <br />any locality correlate to some degree with the qnantities <br />made available by precipitation. But the intensity of <br />precipitation is a factor that must not be overlooked. <br />Rain may be so distributed throughout the year that all <br />the water remains in the soil until it returns to the <br />atmosphere; it may occur at such a rate as to result in <br />some ground-water recharge; or it may occur in a few <br />intense storms that cause overland runoff. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.