My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Water Conservation / Supply Reconaissance Study Part 2
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Water Conservation / Supply Reconaissance Study Part 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2013 12:05:35 PM
Creation date
1/29/2013 11:55:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Final Report - related to the Platte River Research Cooperative Agreement (aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP) - Part 2
State
CO
NE
WY
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
12/1/1999
Author
Boyle Engineering Corporation
Title
Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study for the Platte River Research Cooperative Agreement - Part 2
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
494
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
r� <br />region range from — 13,297 ac -ft per year to 51,000 ac -ft per year, as <br />shown in Table 8.G.79. <br />The average annual net hydrologic effect can be negative due to <br />evaporation and some of the lagged accretions not being included <br />because they would have occurred after 1994. In addition, there may <br />be recharge losses that never get back to the river due to non - beneficial <br />consumptive uses, such as phreatophyte consumptive use. For <br />example, a 1993 Harza study of the NPPD system estimates that 14 <br />percent of recharge losses never get back to the river. It would be <br />expected that the percentage of recharge losses that do not get back to <br />the river are higher in the central Platte region as compared to the <br />lower South Platte River and North Platte River regions as indicated <br />by the existence of the groundwater mound. Recharge losses that do <br />not get back to river have not been included in the analysis of <br />representative groundwater recharge projects, which is consistent with <br />the methodology used to evaluate the Tamarack Recharge Plan. <br />However, the yield associated with these representative projects could <br />be less if there are recharge losses to non - beneficial consumptive uses. <br />The average annual net hydrologic effect at the top of the next <br />downstream reach and at the critical habitat are also summarized in <br />Table 8.G.79. <br />The reductions in shortages to target flows at the critical habitat range <br />from 278 ac -ft per year to 37,895 ac -ft per year, without diversion <br />losses. With diversion losses downstream, reductions range from 109 <br />ac -ft per year to 37,754 ac -ft per year. <br />6. Cost Summary <br />Table 8.G.79 summarizes the total capitalized costs and costs per ac -ft <br />of average reductions in target flow shortages associated with all <br />groundwater alternatives evaluated. Under the representative <br />groundwater programs evaluated in this memo, a Badger- Beaver <br />groundwater recharge projects would have the highest total capitalized <br />cost at about $20 million. A potential Pratt - Ferris Irrigation District <br />groundwater recharge project would have the lowest capitalized cost <br />of the groundwater alternatives evaluated at about $100,000. The <br />average cost per ac -ft of reductions to target flow shortages ranges <br />from $340 to $5,840 without diversion losses and $340 to $21,370 <br />with diversion losses. <br />8 -G -80 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.