My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11664
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11664
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:18:26 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:06:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.128.J
Description
Silt Project
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
8/1/1961
Title
Report of the Reappraisal of Direct Agricultural Benefits and Project Impacts - Silt Project-Colorado - Part 1 of 2
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.
/
41
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 />, <br /> <br />~ <br />C") <br />M <br /> <br />From an inspection of the area and a consideration of the lapse rates, it <br />was concluded that the effective precipitation of the Davie Mesa-Harvey Mesa <br />area will approximate the average precipitation (ten driest consecutive <br />years) at Rifle, and the corresponding monthly amounts have accordingly <br />been used. For an estimate of precipitation in the D~ Elk Valley, a corre- <br />lation was developed between the records at Rifle and those at Collbran, <br />the nearest station with similar characteristics and located at near the <br />same elevation as the Dry Elk Valley. <br /> <br />The various ~rrigation water losses expected within the project at the <br />projected level of land development under project operations were estimated <br />by considering soil characteristics and site locations. Due allowance was <br />made for leaching requirements for salt balance control. Resulting irriga- <br />tion efficiency estimates were adjusted to reflect an estimated 12 percent <br />reuse of tail water runoff and return flows as is the general practice <br />within the area at present. Total far~ irrigation water requirements were <br />estimated by adding on-farm losses to the basic consumptive use estimates <br />weighted by projected crop acreage distribution (table 5). <br /> <br />Table 5. - Irrigation requirements Py evaluation areas, 511 t project <br /> Weighted Average ; Weighted Average : Farm Headgate Water <br /> . Consumptive Use Farm Irrigation . Delivery Requirement, <br /> . . <br />Evaluation Area : Requiremmts, : Efficiency, With . Acre Inches per <br />. <br /> . Acre-Inches per : Project Irrigable Acre <br /> . <br /> . Irrigable Acre Percent <br /> . <br />A 18.4 55 33.5 <br />B IB.6 49 3B.o <br />C IB.3 56 32.7 <br />D lB.4 49 37.6 <br />E 17.5 55 31.B <br />F 17.3 50 34.6 <br />G 16.5 55 30.0 <br />H 16.6 51 32.6 <br /> <br />= 16 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.