|
<br />"
<br />
<br />l~ ~
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />32
<br />
<br />iJjZ4:4
<br />
<br />FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT
<br />
<br />
<br />Net Headgate
<br />supply
<br />53.7 -~--.~- -...-
<br />18.0 --------.---
<br />71,7 ----.._-._--
<br />15,0 -----------.
<br />56.7 85. 1
<br />4.5 6.7
<br />12.5 18,8
<br />74.0 74.0
<br />147,7 184,6
<br />3.5 5,2
<br />151.2 189,8
<br />
<br />,-,'-,.,-.-
<br />. ,,,,,'.-.,,,.-,,-
<br />~\:}<~ ~~"::"';;
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />.'.'
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />C' . ~ '.~~: <":' -, .
<br />-. " .,;,."..:;..
<br />-,:....:,",' .-'
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />\-:.:'':~i,:"~1~;''''''-:~'.k.:1:~::,;:(,:t~:~:-:.''''..: ~
<br />::. ~",:":"j~'~~~: ~:.....-;. ;''j~;.'''i:i.~':;'' ,. .
<br />"'._:-;'- .,~..:-:<. ....~.~~'f:'.-.~~..:....':r_~ ~
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />'. <'.' ^.
<br />::'<"...-.,; .','.
<br />-'^'..."
<br />
<br />
<br />'k(:
<br />
<br />excluding about 48,000 acre-feet from 8 transmountain diversions.
<br />Disposition of the average annual supply was as follows:
<br />
<br />DisPQsition Acre-feet
<br />SU,mme~ h:rig8:tiOD_ - - u_ u_ u - -_ - - _ ___ _ __ _ u _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ 656, 000
<br />Wmter lrrlgatlOn____u______u___________u__u_u___u__u___ 160,000
<br />Reservoir evaporatioD______________u__u__u______U__h______ 50,000
<br />Outflow to Kansas__,_______________h________,__u__u_u___u 277,000
<br />
<br />TotaL-u_____c______u_____u__.___u__u__u____uu__ 1,143,000
<br />64. The estimated ideal headgate diversion requirements during the
<br />irrigation season average 983,000 acre-feet. Reconstructed data
<br />showing the effect of Twin Lakes diversion and the John Martin
<br />Reservoir-had they been in operation for that entire period-disclose
<br />that the historipal headgate diversions would have averaged 720,000
<br />acre-feet seasonally, of which 643,000 acre-feet would be within the
<br />ideal irrigation :schedule. The difference of 340,000 acre-feet repre-
<br />:sents the aver~ge annual headgate shortage. Through optimum
<br />utilization of alI'available supplies, new transmountain'diversions, and
<br />,reUse of return flows, the project could effectuate an estimated supply
<br />Qf 184,600 acre-feet of supplement~l irrigation water at the canaL
<br />headgates in the main valley. That supply would reduce the average
<br />annual headgate shortage to about 155,000 acre-feet, a reduction from
<br />35 percent short~g(> of ideal requirements to about 16 percent shortage.
<br />65, The totaL irrigation water supply to be made availaole by the
<br />project would cqnsist of imported water, conserved floodflows, private
<br />supplies reregulated in project reservoirs, and usable return flows.
<br />Reregulated private supplies include s')me winter flows of the Arkansas
<br />River that are presently diverted for ,direct-flow use but which, by
<br />agreement, could be converted to more beneficial summer use through
<br />storage in the Pueblo Reservoir. Retu.rn flows of the project munici-
<br />pal water are es~imated at 70 percent. 'L'he total irrigation headgate
<br />supply is estimated at 50 percent more than the initial supply, based
<br />upon successive :reuses of the water at the rate of 40 percent return
<br />flow from each application, The next table shows the source of water
<br />to be made available for the Arkansas Valley, reconstructed as annual
<br />averages for the: 1911-44 period of study.
<br />
<br />[Tbou~dsofacre~eeq
<br />
<br />FINANCES AND PROJECT OPERATION
<br />
<br />66. Based upon preliminary designs, and upon prices prevailing in
<br />October 1949, the estimated construction cost of the project is
<br />
<br />Source
<br />
<br />Gross
<br />
<br />Losses
<br />
<br />Fryingpan dlverslon~ ~_ _~__W~R______________________ _________
<br />Arkansas River floods___~____________________________________
<br />Total project water_______ ____._.______________________.
<br />I.ess municipal water._ _.____ ._________.___________________.<
<br />
<br />Project Irrigation SUpply_ _ .____.____n___._____________
<br />Municipal return flow: Arkansas VaIley________________h___
<br />Additional Twin Lakes dlversion_____________Uh_______u__
<br />Converted winter flow _ __'-__________n_________________hU__
<br />
<br />Total valley irrigation supply____hu_h____h______..__
<br />Tributary municipal re.turn flow.______h____uh.___n______ __
<br />
<br />Total usable lrrigat.on supply_..~n__________..:_________ __
<br />
<br />69.2
<br />50.0
<br />119.2
<br />15.0
<br />
<br />15.5
<br />32.0
<br />47.5
<br />
<br />104,2 47.5
<br />7.0 2.5
<br />14.9 2,4
<br />93,,0 19. 0
<br />219. 1 71.4
<br />
<br />
<br />
|