WSP00380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 00255~ 26 Some canal systems have a better water supply than others. When you compare crop consumptive use to crop irrigation requirement, it reflects shortages of adequate water. Five canal systems appear to have adequate water supply under non-project conditions: 1. Las Animas* 2. Rocky Ford Highline 3. Oxford* 4. Catlin 5. Rocky Ford* (*These systems do not appear to need pump or reservoir water) This adequate water conclusion is true to the extent that data collected and used herein reflects actual conditions. As previously mentioned, a great deal of time was not spent on defining exact non-project conditions. When project conditions are applied, three additional canal systems appear to have adequate water: 1. Bessemer 2. Ft. Lyon 3. Lamar The consumptive use comparison figures previously referred to reflect no increase in consumptive use with project conditions for those canals that have adequate water under non-project conditions. It would not be reasonable to implement a project on those canals if increased consumptive use and associated yield increases were the objectives. There would, however, be a benefit to some of those canal systems (2 of the 5) in terms of reduced pumping demand and less reservoir water needed for crop use. This would also be true of those canals that do not achieve full water under non-project conditions, but do under project conditions (3 of the 3). To illustrate this format, figure 8 shows pump plus reservoir water demand for with and without project conditions for the five canal systems impacted. Full spreadsheet printouts are in an appendix for non- project conditions and project conditions.