Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />the Narrows site. This compares with ditch company estiJll9.tes of <br />84,000, 35,000 and 244,000 for these areas as shown on line 5 of <br />the lower section of Table 1. <br /> <br />Although these four studies completed the historic conditions <br />evaluation, two fUrther operations were required before we could <br />evaluate the hydrologic benefits of a Weld County or Narrows <br />Reservoir. "The first was to compute the remaining demand and flow <br />as shown on item 17 of Exhibit 4. Secondly, a determination had to <br />be made of storable flows at the reservoir sites for a historic <br />operation study. <br /> <br />These terms may be interpreted in several ways so a study <br />definition is in order. <br /> <br />~low--The acre~feet per month volume of water passing each <br />river d'i"Version headgate and JIl9.in tributary inflow location during <br />the 1952 to 1957 study period. <br /> <br />Remaining demand--The reJll9.ining river diversion required to <br />give the presently irrigated lands a full water supply with <br />allowance for canal and farm losses. <br /> <br />Storable flow--The amonnt of water that could be withdrawn <br />from the river without affecting any existing downstream diversion. <br />'Specificially this is the lesser of flow at the storage location or <br />ronimum flow in the river below that point. <br /> <br />Exhibit 7 demonstrates the storable flow concept. The unused <br />minimum flow increment is available for diversion or storage at any <br />point in the river between Denver and the State line. Below Olear <br />Creek to the indicated downstream low flow point the amount of flow <br />available for diversion or storage is the unused minimum flow plus <br />the increment of storable flow under the dashed line. Below that <br />point the storable flow is the reJll9.ining flow in the river at the <br />point in question. <br /> <br />When a monthly comparison of irrigation season demand for <br />, water and :t'eJll9.ining flows was made it became apparent that there <br />were times when flow was passing ditches with a demand and passing <br />out of the State unused. If there had been a regulatory facility <br />on the river this flow could have been diverted to the ditches <br />with a demand. This potential diversion becomes possible because of <br />construction of the unit; however, because it can then be diverted by <br />the existing priorities it cannot be used for project repayment. <br />Without a facility the river cannot be administered close enough to <br />permit these diversions. A study was made to reroute this water to <br />eliminate<its consideration for project repayment. The study is <br />our adjusted historic study. <br /> <br />20 <br />