Laserfiche WebLink
<br />02494 <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />been duplicated herein for ease of review. Following is a discussion of the approach used to <br />estimate canal losses (See Table 4): <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />!: <br />" <br />I: <br /> <br />1. Canal lengths were estimated from various published reports (column 1). <br /> <br />2. Average annual diversions from 1940 to 1985 were taken from the State Engineers <br />database (column 2). <br /> <br />3. Average daily diversion were estimated (column 3). <br /> <br />4. Average canal seepage as a percent of diversion was obtained from Table 2 with court <br />decrees receiving the first priority (column 4). <br /> <br />5. When a range of losses were reported an average was obtained (column 5). When no <br />data was available the percent loss was estimated based on nearby, s,imilar ditches <br />(column 5). <br /> <br />6. The average loss (column 6) was estimated in cfsjmi by multiplying % loss (column 5) <br />by average diversion (column 3) and dividing by length (column 1). <br /> <br />7. The average diversion (column 3) and loss per mile (column 6) were plotted on Figure 1 <br />as copied from the Canal and Lateral Loss Memo. <br /> <br />8. A second data point of diversion (column 7) and loss per mile (column 8) was estimated <br />to lie approximately parallel to the two lines presented in Figure 1. <br /> <br />9. Preliminary loss coefficients a (column 9) and b (column 10) were then estimated by <br />solving two equations and two unknowns from the estimates provided by the two data <br />pairs (columns 3 and 6 and columns 8 and 9) <br /> <br />10. Ditch losses were then estimated using the estimates presented in columns 9 and 10 for <br />every month from 1940 to 1985 and the average computed. The coefficient a was then <br />adjusted to insure the estimated ditch loss using the non-linear equation was within 5% <br />of that reported by court decree, engineering studies, etc. as prioritized in Coiumn 5. <br /> <br />2 <br />