Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\\. :il,: ='_ ,I- <br />:.J ~ ,-,.J - <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />D. <br /> <br />upstream of the Florida Canal was assumed to be always sufficient <br />to meet the potential crop consumptive use requirements. <br /> <br />Diversions for Florida Mesa irrigation <br /> <br />Diversions used in the model were based on actual monthly diversion <br />records for the Florida Canal and Florida Farmers Ditch. Monthly <br />diversions as used in the model are presented in Tables 12 and 13. <br />Consumptive use of water on the Florida Mesa returns was calculated <br />on the basis of a maximum 80 percent irrigation efficiency and 16,814 <br />acres of irrigated area. The 80 percent maximum irrigation efficiency <br />was considered to be appropriate because the overall efficiency <br />is increased by the reuse of return flows on the Florida Mesa. On <br />a month by month bais, consumptive use of irrigation water was <br />limited by the maximum irrigation efficiency if the system was <br />water short. If sufficient water was available, consumptive Use <br />was limited by the theoretical consumptive use requirement. Return <br />flows were calculated on the basis of diversions less consumptive <br />use. Return flows associated with irrigation of 4,213 acres were <br />estimated to be tributary to the Animas River. Return flows <br />associated with irrigation of 11,121 and 1,480 acres reach the Florida <br />River in Reaches 1 and 2, respectively, through Pine Gulch and other <br />tributaries. It was assumed that the return flow volume to each <br />river segment is proportional to the relative amount of irrigated <br />area. <br /> <br />Return flows of the Florida Mesa consist of two components - surface <br />returns and groundwater returns. The net lag associated with Florida <br />Mesa returns was initially estimated to be equivalent to the monthly <br />distribution of flow in Salt Creek as measured at the Salt Creek <br />gaging station, corrected to generally exclude natural streamflow <br />in the Salt Creek basin. The Salt Creek flow pattern was assumed <br />to be representative of the Florida Mesa returns because the flow <br />of Salt Creek primarily consists of irrigation return flows from Los <br />Pinos River diversions. Upon calibration of the Florida River model, <br />it was determined that the Salt Creek flow distribution does not <br />adequately represent the pattern of return flows from the Florida <br />Mesa, based on comparison of historic versus simulated flows at <br />the Bondad gage. A correction was made to the monthly return <br />flow pattern was made to improve the agreement with Bondad gage <br />records. The estimated monthly return flows are presented below, <br />expressed as a percentage of the total annual return flow. Return <br />flows for January through March were based on the prior year's <br />total return. <br /> <br />January 4% May 4% September 15% <br />February 4% June 14% October 13% <br />March 3% July 14% November 6% <br />April 2% August 16% December 5% <br /> ,b..J <br /> J,) "\ '1, <br />. . r' <br /> "IS <br /> <br />.ii ,~ <br />