Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />G0195l <br /> <br />Surface-Water Applications <br /> <br />As indicated in the "Introduction" there is a large diversion of water from the Arkansas River into <br /> <br />the Fort Lyon Canal a few miles west of La Junta. The Fort Lyon Canal often carries more water than <br /> <br />the Arkansas River and is a contributor to the fact that the median flow for the Arkansas River at La <br /> <br />Junta, which has a contributing drainage area of about 12,000 square miles, is about 60 cubic feet per <br /> <br />,-^', <br />d h. h' I '/' <br />secon , w IC IS ow. / ". <br />,,' j', ~ ;"', <br />/'<V "\ "'''" ^ "- <br />The Fort Lyon Canal conveys water to many areas east of the study ~~a)1d 6hly ,~'l1~~~~e <br />/"",^- ""'\ /~' ~~', "", ~ <br />, '~, '"', ~ r ",~.., ,\,c""", '> <br />water diverted to the canal is available for use in the study area. Local WJ1C~7~~f ~ppl\c,il6ns for <br />/'M'~,\ \ \,f ;, "'~,.""_'/ / <br />/ ""-'" ,,'M,.'~ ''''.~,_.''' <br />irrigation are made through diversions out of the Fort Lyon Cana(ifii6)QcJ1lia(~ra;fs.~~;.cteliver water to <br />/;'.::.:.""~~,.""> ~~ ;;/.,,~~:>"")} " <br />fields. Usually, the water is used to flood the fields. In this fe.s~~~!\ ~(;F~n.Lyb6'eanaI represents a <br />~,''''/./ (^"""..,,\ \ ""v) <br />\ \ \./' f'\~"" '^',,"\ <br />source of recharge to the local aquifer. , \ '//~"" '.,.,j <br />{ "-ft . <br />,"~""':"""'~'\ '.':, /''''~''''\ " ('.// /> <br />Goff and others (1998) computed annuakS~fface::-vilt~{J1Pplil;atXons using an algorithm that was <br />, '" /<~"',,/ 'v /e"'..",,> <br /> <br />based on the amount of water in the canal ~~'ih';~a~i9,of.irri;a'tidn-program participants in the study <br />/"" \. \.,' /.,',/ /' /'-",^ \, <br />'", '\~ "." 'I" \ <br />area to the total number of participartts:'T.Jt~'r~ul(i-cif theiHstimates are listed in table 4 and shown in <br />.;"'\';>",'1'<,'" ".",/ ,/'.,_ '<" ""~.. . ,F <br />/'"',,~.,\ ""<"" ~\ "J '\-, '" <br />figure 7. Because sUrface-wa\~~'1\p~~~o,l)~have b~en calculated as a function of flow in the canal <br />.,' \j, "''n, \>/ /'~ (, <br />evaluating one is likely to ~~~!Ilf't.o,~V~h!~tip.g the other. <br />~<"'>, ')~)' /' (~", (\ v <br />Surface-wat\lt"aPRIi~'atl6n,~art\q.'gro.uI)l:1-water withdrawals tend to have an inverse relation; that is, <br />,,,,,,<<,:'/',::,:,:>,,~j:,,</ (:<>,::-'<;: "j/ <br />as one increa~eS"tj1'e~thet ott~'h~~br7a:ses. Although this relation is intuitive and can be observed by <br />"\': :'/ /"'",>r,: ",'n', u"') ')'/ <br />comparil)g.tlJ.,:)~e;,otd~' in:t~~1~4;it is not statistically significant as to correlation. <br />" '<"< >' , ;' <br />" ",;' " '~ / <br />The rec'brds''ofGpif'a'~d others (1998) indicated that surface-water applications were highest <br />" ' 'j <br />, ' <br />during 1984{~g.i. table 4) when ground-water withdrawals were low but not the lowest of record. <br /> <br />Beginning in 1977, surface water-application experienced increases punctuated by a decrease during <br /> <br />1981. From 1984 through 1989, surface-water applications decreased and then became relatively steady <br /> <br />for the remaining period of record. The records indicate that at the end of the period ofrecord (1994), <br /> <br />13 <br />