|
<br />00195/1
<br />.terrelations of Ground-Water Levels and Affecting Factors
<br />
<br />
<br />Ground-water levels and factors that affect them can be compared graphically. To do this comparison,
<br />
<br />records were transformed and expressed as a fraction of their range. This transformation facilitates comparisons
<br />
<br />between factors that are sometimes expressed in different units and generally experience different ranges than
<br />
<br />ground-water levels that are expressed as depths to water in feet.
<br />
<br />A comparison of ground-water levels for 2 wells with the elevation of the Arkansas River bed, contributions
<br />/',(
<br />/ ,~
<br />to the Fort Lyon Canal flow from the winter- and project water programs related to 1)1~~'R~~()t~~~tion,
<br />
<br />flow in the Fort Lyon Canal (annual total flow) and Arkansas River (total-annuarand).la{~ m~ljil~l;~;;gr~und-
<br />\ "<>"! r \ 1 "'c
<br />
<br />water withdrawals, and surface-water applications is shown in figure 7. T~ei~;~~)~'~~~{ti~ris that need to
<br />
<br />""u, ",- ("\",, f \.J'"', \ \,/
<br />be made concerning such a comparison. First, all factors, except gr()u~d"~lilpdeYA.I$~~\ly;lpban discharges, and
<br />",~" ''''~ "I,: "\ "\" "~~,,,0
<br />';,~ '",~ / /'~,^ \ \ ~ >
<br />the river bed elevations are annual values and are represent as the\given ilnnlla~vattrie !Qr me entire year in figure 7.
<br />/' "M~\ \ //':/;~/) ,'''''''~/'
<br />Second, most factors represent data measured at a speci~c"g~grilp~ic.poi~~'T.be..Hydrographs for ground-water
<br />/ ,/ ~ "'~~ I" '-, ' '\ /
<br />
<br />eithdrawaIs and surface-water applications are excePt~~~,lh~)repr~s~{~Ai~verall study area. The areal nature
<br />
<br />/'\ \ 1;:)/~~;:;/7//=,~~""~" ",,/
<br />
<br />of the withdrawal and application data mean~jb)~~~vin~J\*(~s~n.~itive to local phenomena, such as localized
<br />
<br /></'''~''''- ,:,^",-,~/, /, "" '~'^'~u,:""/
<br />d . hd I ,".< '''' ", <.,,"',
<br />groun -water Wit rawa s. ;, ,"<;.", :'~\.) "',\, "'"
<br />,"'-- \ ':" "<"" / -,,^, "\/
<br />/ '" '\'" ,~,e- f )
<br />Even though the curves in fig~~,~;~~hif~~e$.ualifications, the figure still allows for observations of the
<br />\" '<'''~''\~>) /:,':=',::) \",)
<br />interrelations being discussed;~QJhy".silftple ft'!tatiofi~ are readily apparent. For instance, well SC0232305503ACC,
<br />z'" ,:~>;> ~~.,,~>/ E/Y/'::/':~'~'~"/;/
<br />or well 1 which is 10c~te,g,,\~tn~'A!~l!P.;s~,~:ISiV~r, shows a reasonably steady increase and compares favorably
<br />'~ ::/} , ,"'<,,~', \-"\ "-'<7:'''''//
<br />with the curve for t6.~liIe:,'~~i';)Qqf~,Ar1<..ah'sJs River bed. The scale used to plot the hydrograph for well 1 in figure 7
<br />-< "" ,: "v' "(,/ \'"''
<br />
<br />emphasizes fluctuatiops I;IlQreift:eciiveIy than the scale used in figure 4 and highlights another simple relation.
<br />/''' ><:",,\~,'J } ,
<br />Well 1 also ingicai~~'lftatit is affected in the short-term by the Arkansas River. For instance, as discussed
<br />
<br />j/ c'
<br />
<br />; j
<br />briefly in the "HistoricafWater Levels" section, well 1 was affected by high flows in the Arkansas River in late
<br />
<br />May 1987. In this case, the water level in well 1, measured June 1, 1987, is the highest water level measured at the
<br />
<br />well. The daily mean flow in the Arkansas River peaked at 6,840 cubic feet per second 10 days earlier; on June 1
<br />.
<br />the flow was 1,680 cubic feet per second. According to the flow-duration statistics in table 5, these are relatively
<br />
<br />16
<br />
|