|
<br />~i":>"
<br />
<br />It
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Memo to r. A. Danielson
<br />May 6, 1974
<br />
<br />Page 2
<br />
<br />members' are given: in Appendix B. These I:::ould be evaluated to determine
<br />historic yield and could also be.used,as a ,cheek on the p~rcent.wel1s are
<br />used ."" :,,"'~~:,"':~'l,":"" l
<br />~:' ,;""/":;',;,:;"~;':~'~;":;",,:~,,, .' ',:'.\ :>",;'.i.l/ .,.),;.':,,~:"..,,: :..,,', .:,'; ".:', :;-' :', ;', ':, .' ,',',' ~
<br />
<br />. ~. . 1 " ~. . . I '
<br />~.,.;;. .'. '~,The monthly grou'nd wat'erwithdiawals in cfs"for each of the five
<br />reaches are, gIven 'in Appendix D-5 and arE! based on an average crop using
<br />a weighted average for monthly consumptive use of various crops. This
<br />appears to be' a reasonably accurate apprc'ach. ',' The aquifer characteristics
<br />for. each reach appear tooo,thearea whem the most significant dIscrepancies
<br />exist. The plan uses an average distance, from the river for all wells in
<br />allf1ve reaches of 13,200 feet. A check (,r all wells (117) in the mainstemm
<br />alluvium of Reach No.2 indicated an average distance of 5864 feet. A
<br />total of 12 wells were not considered beCcl:use the average distance up tri-
<br />butaries was 53 miles. A check of all wells (l59) in Reach No.4 indicated
<br />,1,. '
<br />an average distance from the river of 233S feet'. ,,;,
<br />
<br />" , .
<br />
<br />The stream depletion exhibits1;lsedin the protest' to the rules and
<br />regulations in Water Division No. 1 may be useful as a check on the stream
<br />depletions presented in the Plan. The other alternative would be to utilize
<br />our program which could cost approximately $iSO per reach.
<br />
<br />After the monthly stream depletion rates were determined, the
<br />rates were converted into a monthly volume (acre-feet). The mon.thly
<br />volumes were reduced by certain assumpUons, two of which appear question-
<br />able. The first is a reduction in the volume of replacement water due to
<br />the premise that a call is not on the river at aJl times. For example, June,
<br />July, and August are estimated to have river calls 90 percent of each month
<br />which does not seem realistic for a normal year. The second assumption is
<br />that Reach No.1 be excluded from the au~rmentat1on plan. The only part of
<br />Reach No. 1 that could be excluded is the lower one-third which is below the
<br />Buffalo. Canal headgate. It is doubtful whether the Association would have
<br />any. members below this point anyway.
<br />
|