My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01146
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01146
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:29:31 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:13:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8281.400
Description
Colorado River Studies and Investigations -- Colorado River Depletion Projections
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1959
Title
Depletions in Flow of Colorado River at Lee Ferry Due to Man's Activity in Colorado River Basin in Colorado
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> ,,..:l <br /> ."} <br /> !,"-) <br /> rJ1 Average Temperature <br /> N <br />. W <br /> Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May ~ July Aug. SeJ<t. <<ll::t. Nov. Dec. <br /> -- - - - - <br /> Montrose 26 31.2 39.1 46.1 57.8 66.9 73.3 70.7 63.3 51.6 24.4 28.6 <br /> Longmont 27.1 30.6 37.1 47.463.3 64.2 71.8 70.2 61.8 50.7 30.0 30.4 <br /> <br />It is evident from the above information that the two areas are very much alike, <br />while one is located a considerable distance south of the other, it is at a higher <br />elevation to compensate for it. <br /> <br />The consumptive use of water on both projects should therefore be nearly the <br />same. A 'stu<ly was made of a report put out by the Colorado Water Conserva- <br />tion Board on "Consumptive Use of Irrigation Water in Lower Uncompahgre <br />Valley", by John R. Erickson. <br /> <br />It appears that a good job was done in determining inflow and surface outflow <br />from the drains on the Uncompahgre River and other tributaries of the main <br />Gunnison but no stations were located on the main Gunnison above or below the <br />project to pick up any return flow f rom underground sources that got into the <br />main stream. This could be conSiderable, judging from the fluctuations in depth <br />to water in the' test wells located over the project and to which no consideration <br />waS given. The following lists the wells with their fluctuations: <br /> <br />- From Table 27- <br /> <br />Ma.ximum Distance to Water (Winter) <br /> <br />Uncom- W. D.. War- .131'0- <br />Calona pahgre Lynch Price Tobin Rogers Boye~ rich Holdenmby <br /> <br />42 <br /> <br />33.4 <br /> <br />33.8 23 <br /> <br />14.8 29.9 <br /> <br />. 9.4 3a. 0 27.7 10.8 <br /> <br />Qli.peIa Smith <br />, <br />12.5 19 <br /> <br />Minimum Distance to Wate:t' (Summer) <br />25. 6 20. 9 22. (; 14.2 3.4 <br />Total 16.4' 12. 5 11. 3 8. 8 11.4 <br /> <br />9.5 <br />20.4 <br /> <br />5.2 <br />4.2 <br /> <br />17.3 1.8 <br />21 . 5 10. 4 <br /> <br />1.8.8.5 <br />9 4 <br /> <br />6.1 <br />12.9 <br /> <br />Thr- following two paragraphs were copied from the Report: On page 35-- <br />"Ground water levels as obtained at the observation wells were made as often <br />as practicable. . Valuations on the tabulation represents distances to the water <br />level below a set reference point near the ground surface. The wells observed <br />were free from any pumping operations which might cause material changes in <br />water level. " <br /> <br />On page 43.." From the records of diversions (table 24) and the well data <br />(table 27) (The maximum fluctuations of the wells are shown above), it is con. <br />eluded that no ground storage correction is necessary. " <br /> <br />-IS. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.