|
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />001955
<br />high daily mean flows for the Arkansas River that are exceeded less than 1 and 5 percent of the time.
<br />
<br />This relation, high flow in the river coinciding with high water levels in well 1, is clear in figure 7 when
<br />
<br />comparing the daily mean hydrograph and the hydrograph for the well.
<br />
<br />During 1979 the water levels in well 1 increased to levels not frequently measured prior to 1979
<br />
<br />and remained at or above the new levels (figs. 4 and 7). The same effect is apparent in the daily mean
<br />
<br />hydrograph for the Arkansas River (fig. 7) and indicates that water levels in the well have responded to
<br />
<br />/")
<br />the presence of consistently higher flows in the river as demonstrated by the durati0!iSi.,ttistics in table 5
<br />/0/" /,
<br />/~ ) ~, ~ '\,"'"
<br />/' ,,~,~, v' '*''"'''', '" "
<br />and discussed previously in the "Surface-Water Conveyances" section... \ ~'< / "':~'/ ~'::.>
<br />, / '. / / /'/'"
<br />" ", ''''''''''~'' ), f ,r"'" \ \", )
<br />Another simple relation that is apparent in figure 7 involves th~~n\ral/~,C'i\",\ ~.w)~tIeveIs
<br />//j',) L~ \) "F'-:}"'\' ~"~o-r'f
<br />between the late 1960's and late 1970's that were observed in ~!J,:~~~\\';:9~ €~~~~~.ligure 4 and
<br />/ /""\ / v /'.....~.;:.J}
<br />represented by well SC0230542IBCC. This decrease co~esP~~7h"w!t~\~e~i~graph for annual
<br />( \ "'\/ 0"'''*, 'j \,
<br />\ , /' ) ""'" , "\
<br />total flow in the Fort Lyon Canal and indicates that wa.I~!\I~~eIs in/!h~ltyhl,!d'\Vellsmay be affected by
<br />/ " :~~,~\,* ", "~ ,_ t ~*:,' "\\~\ 1V~/ '
<br />the amount of water in the canal. Dash (1995)rellR'rted-t,tmt lo'~sesJr(l~the canal seemed to be corre-
<br />~/ "-"-, ~\ "" "'-" \ ,.
<br />
<br />lated with the amount of water in the cana:I,p'ie~ii~;!;r;'lli.lftq lo~~'i?s from the canal recharging the
<br />;' "-,~~-\~:\) /'> \- \, ) ,)
<br />aquifer. Water levels in the other ~,y~~~~~~'in/fj~~~:wJiich is located near the Arkansas River, seem
<br />
<br />to be independent of these ef(ec\;~~1?e/a"~ount o~~ter in the Fort Lyon Canal during the late
<br />"'-"',', ">,,,"\ ;I' "\
<br />'\, "~'" c,_\~",j <v/'>,,-_ ,_
<br />1960's to late 1970's pepod. /,<,~;V/ /::; ,'/>
<br />//:;>~--"J/)-{/~ t \. } J
<br />Hydrographs,f6rtlfel\p(ljD"4,we}ls~\1ig4), especially well SC02405515DCC which has record
<br />_ ---'~-'\'--~,,- '\;/'// /~\- ,,/ /' //;
<br />
<br />through 19~7;:all?ndl.;~~,a!~fu~~~rft:ie but steady increase in water levels from about 1990 to 1997.
<br />, / /'~ \~','> ,,' // .' \~'M~,'~ ~/
<br />During m6s(~( this R~i\~a~jr9\md-water withdrawals and surface-water applications appear to be reIa-
<br />'< i /"~'" ",,-," \"",./
<br />tively steady; .hq~,,6'r ripw in the Fort Lyon Canal and the in Arkansas River indicate changes similar
<br />! / .-<'" ~'"'''' '
<br />'\"'. f, "
<br />to the increas~s1i1~asured in the upland weBs (fig. 7) indicating, again, that losses from the canal can
<br />
<br />affect increases in ground-water levels.
<br />
<br />Other relations that can be seen in figure 7 are more complex. The annual totals for ground-water
<br />
<br />. withdrawals and surface-water applications show rather abrupt changes between 1980 and 1981.
<br />
<br />17
<br />
|