My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Hydrologic Effects of Reducing Irrigation to Maintain a Permanent Pool
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
Hydrologic Effects of Reducing Irrigation to Maintain a Permanent Pool
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2010 1:24:00 PM
Creation date
6/28/2010 4:24:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
ARCA
State
CO
KS
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
1/1/1975
Author
U.S. Geologic Survey, Richard R. Luckey, CWCB, State Engineer, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Title
Hydrologic Effects of Reducing Irrigation to Maintain a Permanent Pool
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.
/
27
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
0741 SUMMARY <br />The Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, <br />has acquired 11.24 percent of the shares in Catlin Canal in order to <br />maintain a permanent pool of about 10,000 acre -feet (1.2x10 m of water <br />in John Martin Reservoir. The U.S. Geological Survey was asked to evaluate <br />the effects of this plan on the hydrologic system in the Arkansas River <br />valley. A model developed for testing management alternatives was used <br />to evaluate this change in water use plan. <br />The 25 -year period from 1949 through 1973 was simulated. In <br />simulating the change in water use, the following assumptions were made: <br />1. Only the consumptive use (77 percent) of the Division's water <br />would be transferred to the reservoir. The recharge (23 percent) would <br />be returned to the river. <br />• ! 2. The Division would be charged a river loss of 0.07 percent per <br />mile (total loss 2.5 percent) for transporting the water down the river <br />to the reservoir. <br />3. Evaporation from the reservoir would be proportioned between the <br />permanent pool and the nonpermanent pool on the basis of their respective <br />volumes. <br />4. Irrigators under the Catlin Canal would not be allowed to pump <br />water to make up for the 11.24 percent of the shares that were sold to the <br />Division of Wildlife. <br />5. The Division of Wildlife did not claim any of the imported water <br />that belonged to the Catlin Canal. <br />6. The pool size was limited to 15,000 acre -feet (1.9x10 m provided <br />. that the flood- control pool was not invaded by more than 10,000 acre -feet <br />(1.2x10 m <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.