Laserfiche WebLink
<br />," <br /> <br />The 1978 drought was by far the most severe on record. It could <br /> <br /> <br />be even more severe than indicated by the shortage figures in Table 7 <br /> <br /> <br />since these estimates were prepared before all the streamflow data <br /> <br /> <br />was available. The flows for Bear Creek at Sheridao were not availabl~ <br /> <br /> <br />beyond September 1978 at the time of this writing. Therefore, it <br /> <br /> <br />was assumed that the substantial rains which fell on October 21 and 22 <br /> <br /> <br />were sufficient to end the drought. Without the Sheridan gage. flows, <br /> <br /> <br />it was not possible to confirm this assumption, since some of the <br /> <br /> <br />irrigation ditches continued to divert water into the first week of <br /> <br /> <br />Novembe r. <br /> <br />The raw .'ater storage required to meet a demand for 4,000 taps <br /> <br /> <br />for a recurrence of the 1978 drought would be 260 acre-feet and <br /> <br /> <br />425 acre-feet for the McBroom calls of 6 and 10.6 cfs, respectively. <br /> <br /> <br />Base ~se demands could not be met for 2,390 taps, resulting in shortages <br /> <br /> <br />of 25 and 113 acre-feet, depending on the McBroom Ditch call. 4,000 taps <br /> <br /> <br />would require 70 or 200 acre-feet of storage, depending on the McBroom <br /> <br /> <br />Ditch ca 11 . <br /> <br /> <br />Historic 3D-day flows at Morrison during non-irrigating months <br /> <br /> <br />Vias lowest for February 1933, averaging 3.4 cfs with a minimum flow <br /> <br /> <br />of 3 cfs. Should this period recur, it is estimated that an average <br /> <br /> <br />of 3.0 cfs .,ould be available at the Evergreen intake. This ,"auld <br /> <br /> <br />supply the demand of 1.45 cfs for 4,000 taps. However, this supply <br /> <br /> <br />could be reduced by calls from any of the reservoirs specified in <br /> <br /> <br />the transfer decree of the No.2 right to Evergreen. <br /> <br />Summary of Results <br /> <br />The Evergreen Water System owns 6 cfs of the No.2 priority right <br /> <br /> <br />in District 9 of Water Oivision 1. Review of South Platte River calls <br /> <br /> <br />for 1552 through 1977 sho.,ed that this right ,"as in priority for the <br /> <br /> <br />entire period. If and wheo there is insufficieot water to satisfy <br /> <br /> <br />the entire No.2 priority water rights, then Evergreen's share is pro- <br /> <br /> <br />ratee. Two factors involving water rights 'Ihich .,i 11 have a great <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />-22- <br />