My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Arkansas River Channel Capacity and Riparian Habitat Planning Study
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
Arkansas River Channel Capacity and Riparian Habitat Planning Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2010 11:42:48 AM
Creation date
6/25/2010 4:10:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
ARCA
State
CO
KS
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
8/1/2001
Author
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Title
Arkansas River Channel Capacity and Riparian Habitat Planning Study
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.
/
158
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
1 ' <br />especially between 1880 and 1910, and other water source alternatives were developed such as , <br />P Y <br />tapping ground and trans - mountain water (USAGE 1973:59; Milenski 1990:6 - 8,16 -27; Abbott <br />1985:8 -9). ' <br />The preceding information brings us to a point from which we have a general <br />understanding of some of the physical characteristics' of the Arkansas River and we have been ' <br />introduced to numerous early historical 1800s events that have led to effects on the river that <br />have culminated in the river we see today. While nature has a unique ability to overcome stress, <br />by the end of the 1800s, the valley's vegetation and soils were in an extremely stressed <br />condition. Through history then, there were several periods in which the floodplain grasses had <br />been extensively overgrazed and their root systems %yere depleted to a point that it is nearly , <br />impossible for the plant to survive, The upland prairie grasslands were also severely strained and <br />the drought years were taking a toll. The stands of g1rand old cottonwoods that had grown to <br />gigantic proportions during "the monsoon" years hack been cut down for firewood by the Native ' <br />Americans and the huge influx of white people that traveled through or settled in the valley, and <br />for railroad cross -ties and the smoke- belching locomotives. Many cottonwoods had also been <br />cut down to feed large horse herds during the severe =winters and for building materials. The ' <br />buffalo were nearly all gone and cattle have been introduced to take their place. Young <br />cottonwood treei and other riparian vegetation were being grazed off almost faster than it could <br />sprout. <br />As in the many previous cycles of rain and drought, there is now little native riparian <br />vegetation with significant root systems left in the volley to hold the soils during flood events. ' <br />These poor conditions may have had some effects on the Arkansas River and be reflected in <br />research by Nadler (1978:64 -65, 67, Table 11; USACE 1997:3 -5) where, in association with the <br />Central PIains drought years of 1888 -1897 and the floods reported for the years 1885, 1886, and <br />1894, river sinuosity decreased between La Junta anal Las Animas and average river channel <br />widths had increased from about 575 feet to 700 feet, between the years of 1870 and 1892. This <br />is the river that was reported as a characteristically straight, wide, shallow braided channel. This ' <br />would change, however, between 1926 and 1952 wh6n the channel "narrowed considerably" <br />until "The 1952 width was only 21% of the 1892 width" (Nadler 1978:64). <br />By the late 1800s, however, the canal systemo were starting to divert river water, as well <br />' <br />as its suspended sediments, in significant amounts. It was not long before they were constructing <br />sluice boxes in the canal downstream of the diversioO structures to try to flush at least a portion <br />of the sediments back to the river in order to maintaii the canal (Watts and Lindner - Lunsford <br />1992:5). Now, during the irrigation season, the rive has such low flows that it could no longer <br />effectively redistribute the flushed return sediments.: A Corps (1960) sedimentation report for <br />the river above John Martin Reservoir indicated that ;as much as 5,000 acre -feet of sediment per <br />' <br />year was being diverted from the river with irrigation waters, and that only about 20 percent of <br />that sediment, about 1,200 acre -feet per year, was being returned to the river (and in Nadler <br />1978:90). The irrigation water diversions "temporarily reduced mean annual and peak <br />discharges of the rivers" (Nadler and Schumm 1981 :197) and, along with other human uses that <br />were also placing increasing demands on the river water, were beginning to make significant <br />' <br />alterations to the river. Alterations were also occurring to the ground water table. Below the <br />irrigation canals, the ground water table was rising a� the diverted irrigation water was utilized to <br />18 ' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.