|
<br />Q01950
<br />
<br />_mountain diversion water (annual totals are listed in table 4). The mean-daily hydrograph shows typical seasonal
<br />
<br />
<br />~ariation of flow for the period studied and indicates that flow is highest in June.
<br />
<br />The record for the Fort Lyon Canal, as well as ground-water withdrawals and surface water applications,
<br />
<br />indicates a change during the late 1970's. Accordingly flow-duration analyses were prepared to describe differ-
<br />
<br />ences in flow characteristics for two periods, 1960 to 1980 and 1981 to 1997. A flow-duration analysis is very
<br />
<br />similar to a cumulative frequency analysis. The results for this study (table 5) list a percent~ge of time, from the
<br />/1
<br />/ , ,,~
<br />period of record being analyzed, that the corresponding rate of flow was exceeded./~r."",, C"
<br />/ j . '\, J '" ",
<br />f / / " '/ /~__ _'-~_p~" ""
<br />The flow-duration statistics in table 5 indicate that there was flow in the F(~~~~:~anfr:~~~~~fert during
<br />
<br />',. \/ _ ," )' I', \ i
<br />the first period than the second. For instance, there were very low flows (l~sS"thart\ 1 \tubic)0~l.peF~cond) in the
<br /><" <~;:>::~~:v' l(;~-~~~2S-'~
<br />canal for only 1 percent of the first period, whereas there were very<~~~~:i,P ~~~~J 10 percent of the
<br />
<br />second period. Perhaps more importanely, the flow-duration stati~tics 'iftdl.;.ai~t!1at~9~ I;ert:ent of the second period
<br />\ '- "', ./ "". ~-~-,-~- --\ \
<br />--:-~~--""'\ \ // /~/) ~~-~/
<br />flow in the canal was greater, usually by a factor of 1.5 t~hthanJhpthe)j~~1>,!'9(j)l.
<br />-//''''L ,\,,/j'/--),,,,--'-
<br />< <: /' ",,-- j' / ') ,._',-'" ';,</
<br />. The discharge record for the Arkansas River \~~~:~~,~S_h~\v(~fig\rre 6. The annual total and mean-
<br />
<br />daily hydrographs are generally similar to th~_hY~$\a~ils~~ot ~h~~rt Lyon Canal (fig. 5). The annual total
<br />< , '~--<" '", \/ oJ) \ '-''o.___J !
<br />/"''' -_C'->"~~ I/'<: "'" ",/
<br />hydrograph indicates that, during 1 965 tsr~~h~wln1ht\A{kansas River was relatively steady compared to the
<br />\ ", -~~~ -~~y , , '>
<br />-"- '\ "- -<'^/ ,/ '> %'
<br />decreases for the Fort Lyon Canal. A~o;';alil\()tlgJtflQ,w in the river was high during the late 1970's and early
<br />", \,"- -,-'""'/ ,_/~" \,
<br />'-'_ "'''''_"'" ,r-----',", "~ ~
<br />1980's it was not, like the flow~,~.~h5~i>~ ~y~n saral40r this period, the highest of record. However, after 1988,
<br />
<br />" / :, ", /' ,/ j' '\ ,--~ l
<br />the flow in the river incre!(se.if i,riclij>af~rn:::sj1hil,ado the flow in the canal.
<br />., '- __--,~ "',>/ < ':2~ <v/:/
<br />
<br />The flow-duration' ;(ali~ticsfor ;~>>(ansas River listed in table 5 also are similar to those for the Fort Lyon
<br />, , ' ""'\c\ /,/ ,,1 ".~~,,~:/"
<br />
<br />Canal; however, there are dai)Y"fQ.6afi,~alues of 0 flow in the Arkansas River at La Junta. The tendency for flows to
<br />,.' '"', ", '\",-,'
<br />" ,-"
<br />be greater in the secoridl?~.i~~ii more pronounced for the Arkansas River; second period flows often exceed first
<br />
<br />period flows by a factot.of::2 and sometimes by a factor of 3.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />12
<br />
|