My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Senate Joint Resolution 94-32 Concerning the Management, Conservation, and Preservation of Water Resources of CO
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
Senate Joint Resolution 94-32 Concerning the Management, Conservation, and Preservation of Water Resources of CO
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2010 1:03:26 PM
Creation date
7/16/2010 12:22:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Laws, Acts, Policies: Ruling Affecting CWCB and Colorado Water
State
CO
Date
7/1/1995
Author
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, CWCB, Daries C. Lile, Hal D. Simpson
Title
Senate Joint Resolution 94-32 Concerning the Management, Conservation, and Preservation of Water Resources of CO
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Legislation
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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 above ranking system is subjective. For example, in Division 2, stream flow records <br />were ranked Good to recognize the general availability of mainstem records, even though <br />many tributaries are not gauged. Similarly in Division 1, pumping records were ranked <br />Poor since such estimates are generally unavailable but might be developed with <br />significant effort. Divisions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were generally ranked higher than <br />Divisions 1 and 3 to reflect the significant effort devoted to obtain basic data for the <br />Kansas v. Colorado lawsuit (Division 2) and the Colorado River Decision Support <br />System (Divisions 4 through 7). In fact, when CRDkS is complete most of the water <br />budget components could be rated as good. However, they are indicated as fair to <br />emphasize the need for a program to maintain them in the good category. Section 4.0, <br />Plan and Schedule, describes a prioritized procedure to obtain missing information <br />throughout the state. <br />Table 3.2 (cont.) <br />Data Quality by <br />Division <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />Storage Changes: <br />Reservoir Storage <br />Good <br />Good <br />Good <br />Good <br />Good <br />Good <br />Good <br />Ground Water Storage <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />Soil Storage <br />Poor <br />Fair <br />Poor <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Other Key Internal Balance <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />Terms <br />Surface Water Diversions <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Good <br />Good <br />Good <br />Good <br />Ground Water Pumping <br />Poor <br />Good <br />Poor <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />Surface Water Returns <br />Poor <br />Good <br />Poor <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Deep Percolation <br />Poor <br />Good <br />Poor <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Stream/Aquifer Flux <br />Poor <br />Good <br />Poor <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Irrigated Acreage <br />Poor <br />Fair <br />Poor <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />Fair <br />The above ranking system is subjective. For example, in Division 2, stream flow records <br />were ranked Good to recognize the general availability of mainstem records, even though <br />many tributaries are not gauged. Similarly in Division 1, pumping records were ranked <br />Poor since such estimates are generally unavailable but might be developed with <br />significant effort. Divisions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were generally ranked higher than <br />Divisions 1 and 3 to reflect the significant effort devoted to obtain basic data for the <br />Kansas v. Colorado lawsuit (Division 2) and the Colorado River Decision Support <br />System (Divisions 4 through 7). In fact, when CRDkS is complete most of the water <br />budget components could be rated as good. However, they are indicated as fair to <br />emphasize the need for a program to maintain them in the good category. Section 4.0, <br />Plan and Schedule, describes a prioritized procedure to obtain missing information <br />throughout the state. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.