My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Drought & Water Management
CWCB
>
Drought Mitigation
>
DayForward
>
Drought & Water Management
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2010 3:24:05 PM
Creation date
4/29/2010 2:43:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Drought Mitigation
Title
What the Current Drought Means for the Future of Water Management in Colorado
Date
1/1/2003
Description
2002 Drought Impact Report
Basin
Statewide
Drought Mitigation - Doc Type
Reports
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
average and continued to decline into the summer, whereas in 2001, despite "dry <br />conditions," late- winter /spring precipitation was relatively high and midsummer enjoyed <br />average to above - average precipitation. <br />2. Reservoir and Streamflow Conditions in the Spring <br />In the Rio Grande, reservoir storage was between 23% and 78% of normal and <br />streamflow barely exceeded 500 cubic feet per second (cfs). A normal peak would have <br />been around 5300 cfs; in 1977, another dry year, the river peaked at 1200 cfs. In the San <br />Juan/Dolores, reservoirs were at 60% to 70% of normal, though some were quite low. By <br />mid - April, most streams had peaked and junior water rights were being called, i.e., being <br />asked to reduce or stop diverting, similar to conditions in 1977. <br />Figure 11.2. Colorado SNOTEL Precipitation <br />Colorado SNOTEL Precipitation <br />160 <br />140 <br />120 <br />100 <br />w 80 <br />a <br />c <br />L 60 <br />O. <br />40 <br />20 <br />V e <br />CPO c��►' , r ya , ��t+ p � , �+s+ y ,4�5y, V0, .0 Q c. �6k' 4e , �i„ ��,pn mo t+ p ��,�, ,� ,441 P �• <br />In the Gunnison, the mainstem reservoirs (Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal) were <br />releasing from storage rather than filling. In the upper Gunnison, Taylor Park Reservoir <br />was at 62% and received no more storable water. Other reservoirs were in worse <br />condition. The Gunnison flow at Grand Junction was 32% of normal and as of April 15th <br />most of the basin was under a call -- for the first time in 50 years. In the Yampa and <br />White Rivers, none of the reservoirs (with the exception of Stagecoach) were near full <br />nor expected to fill and streamflow conditions were, for the most part, extremely low. In <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.