WSP10461

• File Number: 8111.808
• Description: Arkansas River Compact Administration - Transit Loss
• Basin: Arkansas
• Date: 1/1/1978
• Author: USGS
• Title: Transit Losses and Traveltimes of Reservoir Releases Along the Arkansas River from Pueblo Reservoir to John Martin Reservoir. Southeastern Colorado
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

Table 3.--Aquifer and river-ahannel anaraateristias used in aomputer model of
the Arkansas River from Pueblo Reservoir to John Martin Reservoir

,

Transmissivity Storage Storage Length of Length of
Subreach1 of aquifer, coeff i ci en t coeff i ci en t alluvium, river,
in feet squared of aquifer of channe I ,
per day (dimensionless) in hours in mi les in mi les
1 10,000 0.10 1.6 14 24
2 10,000 .10 1.3 10 18
3 12,000 .10 1.5 12 21
4 11,000 .12 1.9 19 31 "
5 10,000 .15 1.8 15 27 I
6 9,000 .15 1.4 15 21
ISee figure 1 for location of subreach.
II
Calibration of Modified Computer Model

"

,

Recognizing the importance of the model-calibration phase of the study,
the major ditch companies in the study reach contributed a portion of their
direct-flow water right to provide the 1,000 acre-ft of water necessary for a
controlled-test release from Pueblo Reservoir. After the streamflow at
Pueblo had been stabilized for 2 days at 200 ft3/s, the controlled-test
release of 100 ft3/s for 5 days was made beginning on September 22, 1975.
During the following 10 days, time for the release to pass through the study
reach, changes in diversion outflow and tributary inflows were minimized to
simplify interpretation of system response to the test release. In addition
to the data normally collected at the gaging stations and diversion canals,
about 100 streamflow-discharge measurements and 150 ground-water-level
measurements were made.

,

Following analysis of all the information collected during the
controlled-test release, streamflow hydrographs simulated by the computer
model were compared with streamflow hydrographs from data measured by the
gaging stations located at the end of each subreach (see figs. 2-7). The
volumes of the simulated-release hydrographs ranged from -4.5 to +8.4 percent
of the volumes measured at the stream-gaging stations. The sudden temporary
decrease in streamflow on September 24 at the stream-gaging station down-
stream from the Catlin Dam (fig. 4) is the result of canal sluicing, the
diverted flow being returned to the river downstream from the gage. The
apparent irregularities in the hydrographs for the stream-gaging stations
near Nepesta (fig. 3) and at La Junta (fig. 5) could not be explained by
operations of canals, changes in tributary flows, or interpretation of gage
records of river stage.

f
l:
f.
if.:
f'
~" "
!
~'. .
:;
;:
~

i:"
~
~.

.~ ,
,.

9

,
l~'

.-

..--.

,