Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Table 3.2 (cont.) <br /> Data Quality by Division <br /> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <br />Storage Changes: <br />Reservoir Storage Good Good Good Good Good Good Good <br />Ground Water Storage Fair Fair Fair N/A N/A N/A N/A <br />Soil Storage Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair <br />Other Key Internal Balance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <br />Tenns <br />Surface Water Diversions Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good <br />Ground Water Pumping Poor Good Poor N/A N/A N/A N/A <br />Surface Water Returns Poor Good Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair <br />Deep Percolation Poor Good Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair <br />Stream! Aquifer Flux Poor Good Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair <br />Irrigated Acreage Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair <br /> <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 CROSS 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 />