Laserfiche WebLink
:.W1. <br />500 <br />E! 400 <br />u <br />300 <br />U Vi <br />200 <br />c <br />d 100 <br />0 <br />Et 0 0000 0000 <br />Year <br />Arkansas River at La Junta (m /s) <br />Fort Lyon Canal (m /s) <br />Figure 3. Total annual discharge of the Arkansas River at La Junta <br />and the Fort Lyon Canal, 1971 -94. <br />allow for diversion of the river at a maximum discharge or 26 <br />m /s (Dash 1994). Average daily diversions of about 9 m /s are a <br />function of the quantity of flow in the river and the administration <br />of water rights in the basin. Diversions from the canal to the irri- <br />gated lands are made through numerous small headgates. <br />Streamflow is not adequate to meet crop demands in many years, <br />especially in spring and late summer. Therefore, ground water <br />pumped from the alluvial aquifer serves to meet irrigation needs <br />during periods of lower streamflow. Irrigation from ground water <br />sources is derived from as many as 92 large capacity irrigation wells <br />that are approximately evenly spaced over the length of the study <br />area, primarily north of the river. During the 24 year study period, <br />the number of irrigation pumps that were used in any one month <br />varied. <br />The alluvium underlying the study area consists of deposits of <br />Holocene and Pleistocene clay, sand, silt, and gravel, and is under- <br />lain by relatively impermeable Upper Cretaceous limestone and <br />shale. Average thickness of the alluvium in the study area is about <br />10 in (Person and Konikow 1986), with an average saturated thick- <br />ness of about 6 km (Konikow and Person 1985). The estimated <br />effective porosity of the aquifer is 0.2, and the transmissivity aver- <br />ages 9.3 X 10 -3 m /s (Konikow and Person 1985). The aquifer is <br />hydraulically connected to the Arkansas River, which is a par- <br />tially penetrating stream. Ground water flow generally is toward the <br />northeast, parallel to the river. In the eastern part of the study area, <br />however, a component of the flow trends southeasterly from the <br />canal to the river. Streamflow recovery, downstream from the <br />canal headgate, is supplied mainly from irrigation return flows. <br />Description of Model and Data Requirements <br />The two - dimensional, distributed parameter flow and solute <br />transport model (Konikow and Bredehoeft 1978), commonly <br />referred to as the Method of Characteristics (MOC) model, was <br />applied to the study area in several earlier studies (Konikow and <br />Bredehoeft 1974a, 1974b; Person and Konikow 1986). The model <br />used by Person and Konikow (1986), which was calibrated for 1971- <br />82 conditions, was adopted for use in this study; their boundary con- <br />ditions and initial aquifer characteristics were used. The model <br />and data requirements will be briefly described here. For a more <br />complete description, refer to Konikow and Bredehoeft (1978). <br />The model approximates solutions to the coupled, partial dif- <br />ferential equations governing fluid flow and solute transport. The <br />distribution of the heads in the aquifer is calculated by solving the <br />equation of fluid flow by an alternating direction implicit procedure. <br />Once the distribution of heads in the aquifer is calculated, Darcy's <br />law is used to calculate the flow velocities. The solute transport equa- <br />tion is solved by the method of characteristics to estimate salinity. <br />These equations are solved on a monthly time step for each of the <br />applicable grid cells in the 20 cell by 44 cell rectangular model grid. <br />Each grid cell measures 201 in by 403 m. Cells outside the aquifer <br />boundaries were treated as no -flow boundaries. Boundary cells <br />on the southwestern and northeastern ends of the model grid were <br />treated as constant flow boundaries based on estimated ground <br />water underflow into and out of the study area. <br />Data required for the head and flow calculations include pre- <br />cipitation, streamflow, canal flow, irrigation from surface water <br />sources, ground water withdrawals (municipal and irrigation), crop <br />and phreatophyte evapotranspiration, ground water underflow, and <br />recharge. Precipitation and other climatological data were col- <br />lected at the La Junta airport, which is located about 1.6 km north <br />of the study area. Precipitation was applied evenly over the entire <br />stuady area at a constant rate throughout each month. Streamflow data <br />were collected on a monthly basis near the upstream end of the study <br />area at the La Junta gauging station by the Colorado Division of <br />Water Resources. Surface water diversion data for the Fort Lyon <br />Canal were collected by the Fort Lyon Canal Co. at a Parshall <br />flume located about 1.6 km downstream from the diversion point. <br />Of the total diversions to the canal, 5.5% was delivered for appli- <br />cation to the irrigated land in the study area. The amount of applied <br />surface water was estimated on the basis of the proportion of canal <br />shares in the study area relative to the number of shares in the entire <br />canal system (Gronning Engineering Co. 1993). All irrigated land <br />in the study area was assumed to receive equivalent surface water <br />irrigation application rates. Surface water application rates varied <br />with streamflow. During 1971 -82, when streamflow was relatively <br />small, average surface water applications were 0.6 m/yr (Figure 4). <br />During 1983 -94, streamflow typically was larger, and average sur- <br />face water applications increased to 0.8 m/yr (Figure 4). <br />a <br />-0 1 <br />a <br />d 0.5 <br />0 <br />F <br />Year <br />Surface Water ® Ground Water <br />Figure 4. Estimated annual irrigation application in the study area, <br />1971 -94. <br />78 <br />— m %n n 0, .-. m v o m <br />00 00 00 00 0o a a <br />