BOARD00182 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/23/2007
• Description: ISF Section - Hat Creek Proposed Water Acquisition
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

.

.

Table 2
Hat Creek Ditch Water Budget
(values in acre-feet)

RowT Component I Novl Decl Janl Feb Mar I Apr I May I Jun I Jul I Aug Sep T Oct T Total
Ditch Diversion
! 1 Hat Creek Ditch diversion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.9 55.1 69.7 55.0 34.6 10.8 230.3
2 Ditch Loss 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.5 7.0 5.5 3.5 1.1 23.1
3 Field Deliverv 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.4 49.6 62.7 49.5 31.1 9.7 207.2
ii 5011 Root Zone Ooeratlon
4 Consumotive Irr_Reqt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 9.5 8.1 5.9 5.5 1.1 35.4
5 Deep Percolation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 18.5 27.3 21.8 12.8 4.3 85.9
6 Tailwater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 18.5 27.3 21.8 12.8 4.3 85.9
'I 7 Consumptive Use 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 9.5 8.1 5.9 5.5 1.1 35.4
8 EOM Storage 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 4.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 ----
9 Storage Change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Return Flow
10 Surface Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 18.5 27.3 21.8 12.8 4.3 85.9
i 11 Ground Water 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 18.4 31.7 29.1 19.1 8.1 109.1
12 Total 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.3 36.9 59.0 50.9 31.9 12.4 195.0
'i Stream DeDletlon with resDect to the River Headaate
'I 14 1 Net (acre-feet) 1 -1.41 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 2.6 18.2 10.7 4.1 2.7 -1.6 35.3
15 Net (ets) 1 -0.021 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.04 0.311 0.171 0.07 0.05 -0.031 ---

Row Description
1. Average monthly diversion by the Hat Creek Ditch for 1951-1992 for years diversions were recorded. See Table 1.
2. Ditch seepage loss at 10 percent based on "Estimating Seepage Losses from Canal Systems" by R.V. Worstel, Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage, ASCE, March 1976.
3. Row 1 - Row 2 = Field delivery
4. Consumptive irrigation requirement for 22 acres of hay and pasture grass using modified Blaney-Criddle method and crop
coefficients presented in "Evapotranspiration in High Altitude Mountain Meadows in Grand County" by N. Carlson (Denver
Water Department).
5. Percolation through root zone to ground water. Delivery exceeding consumptive irrigation requirement plus soil moisture
deficit is divided equally between deep percolation and tail water. Minimum amount is 25% of field delivery.
6. Runoff from end of field. Delivery exceeding consumptive irrigation requirement plus soil moisture deficit is divided equally
between deep percolation and tail water. Minimum amount is 25% of field delivery. Maximum irrigation efficiency = 50%.
7. Crop consumption use equals consumptive irrigation requirement if water supply and carry over soil moisture are adequate.
8. Previous month's storage + Row 3 - Row 5 - Row 6 - Row 7, limited to available water holding capacity of 7.9 acre-feet.
9. Change in soil moisture storage from previous month.
10. From Row 7
11. Return from ditch seepage and deep percolation. Centroid of field is approximately 300 feet to river. Underlying materials
are gravel, cobbles with moderate permeabliity ("Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado" USDA, May 1992).75% returns
to river in same month as diversion and 25% returns in the following month..
12. Row 10 + Row 11
13. Diversion - Return Flow (Row 1 - Row 12). Negative depletion indicates a historical stream accretion caused by the lagged
groundwater return flow.
14. Row 13 converted to cubic feet per second

Avail water holding cap=
Beginning soil moisture=
Irrigated acreage=

7.9 ac-ft
7.9 ac-ft
22 acres

4/11/2007 C:IDocuments and Settingslbh11Local SettlngslTemporary Internet FileslOLK9AIHatCrDDivSum.xls Table 2 taw