My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CRDSS_Task2-09-20_SummationCUEstimates_ColoBasin
CWCB
>
Decision Support Systems
>
DayForward
>
CRDSS_Task2-09-20_SummationCUEstimates_ColoBasin
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/25/2011 10:18:45 AM
Creation date
5/29/2008 2:26:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Decision Support Systems
Title
CRDSS Task 2.09-20 - Summation of CU Estimates (Irrigation and Other Uses) for Selected Basins Within the Colorado River Basin for calender year 1985-1990
Description
This task memorandum summarizes the results of consumptive use (CU) for irrigated areas and other uses (livestock, stockponds, municipal, thermal electric, mineral resources, and export) associated with the Yampa, White, Upper Colorado, San Juan, and Dolores River Basins.
Decision Support - Doc Type
Task Memorandum
Date
1/21/1997
DSS Category
Consumptive Use
DSS
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Contract/PO #
C153658, C153727, C153752
Grant Type
Non-Reimbursable
Bill Number
SB92-87, HB93-1273, SB94-029, HB95-1155, SB96-153, HB97-008
Prepared By
Riverside Technology inc.
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
The task memos describing in more detail the consumptive use numbers for <br />other uses are the following: <br />Upper Colorado River Basin ITask Memo 2.09 -10 <br />White River Basin ITask Memo 2.09 -11 <br />Yampa River Basin ITask Memo 2.09 -12 <br />San Juan and Dolores River Ba Task Memo 2.09 -13 <br />2.1 Issues for Review <br />In calculating the crop CU the following issues were raised. If you are using the <br />crop CU numbers we encourage you to review the individual task memos for <br />each river basin where more detail is provided. The following are some of the <br />general issues raised on those task memos: <br />The results for the CU Model indicate a fairly common pattern of middle and late <br />growing season shortages. Some of the shortages might be caused by the fact <br />that no soil moisture is being modeled. These shortages could reflect the practice <br />of having spring diversions in excess of what is needed to meet the IWR in the <br />Spring, in order to replenishing the soil profile from losses through the winter. <br />This soil moisture is used in the middle and late growing season when the <br />diversions are less than the IWR. This pattern of consumptive use shortages <br />indicates that using a soil moisture budget might yield better results in the future. <br />The set of weather station weights was assigned based on the location of the <br />structure (i.e., county -huc where the structure is located) and not the location of <br />the area being served (except for the San Juan and Dolores). It may be useful in <br />the future to assign weights based on the location of the majority land -area <br />served by each structure. <br />The weights assigned to each weather station serving a county -huc are based on <br />the area of the county -huc served by each weather station. This is probably a <br />good assumption when modeling the whole irrigated area, but could introduce <br />some errors when modeling individual diversion structures. The reason for this is <br />that a structure might be located in an area of the county -huc that is represented <br />by only one weather station. When modeling individual diversion structures, <br />consideration should be given to further breaking the county -huc areas by the <br />zones where each weather station could be applied. <br />If any ditches are considerably water short but historically divert small volumes of <br />water compared to Head Gate Requirements (which are computed based on the <br />IWR values and the efficiency), the diversion records and the area assigned to <br />these ditches should be considered for future review to determine the cause of <br />these discrepancies. <br />If any ditches serving irrigated areas have a large discrepancy between the <br />historic diversion and the calculated Head Gate Requirement, the diversion <br />records and the area assigned to these ditches should be considered for future <br />review to determine the cause of the discrepancy. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.