My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02044
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02044
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:34:06 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:53:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8126.700
Description
Arkansas River Coordinating Committee - Committees - Subcommittees
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
11/1/1973
Author
Water Resources Asso
Title
Salvage of Water due to Phreatophyte Clearing Shelton Farms Arkansas River Valley 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.
/
29
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 />Water Use Rates For Various Types <br /> <br />The Augmentation Plan gives an estimated water loss of 3.33 acre feet <br />per acre (including precipitation) for Type I and 3.52 acre feet for Type III, <br />(Table 2). The figures were obtained from the Bittinger and Stringham report <br />and seem quite in line with other estimates. For example, Table 1 shows that <br />Blaney and Criddle (2) applying their empirical fonnula based on temperature, <br />day length, and a plant factor, estimated that dense vegetation in this reach <br />of the Arkansas River would utilize 3. 5 feet and mediUlll vegetation 2,9 feet. <br />In addition to the need to consider the open areas (Type VII), it must <br />also be borne in mind that these water losses are from an area growing phrea- <br />tophytes and do not mean that the woody vegetation is utilizing all of this <br />water and that all could be salvaged. Bittinger and Stringham estimated that <br />.1.5 acre feet of water would be lost from an acre with an open cover of weeds <br />or bare soil through evaporation from rainfall and capillary movement from <br />groundwater at 5 feet or less below the surface. Land cleared of phreato- <br />phytes would probably utilize about this same amount, if the grotmdwater was <br />at this depth. <br />The annual rates of water loss from both phreatophytes and open ground <br />drop considerably if water tables drop, Table 3 adjusts the Bittinger String- <br />ham figures for 0-5 foot depth to deeper water tables, <br /> <br />Vegetation <br /> <br />TABLE 3 <br /> <br />.ANNUAL WATER LOSS RATES IN RELATION TO WATER TABLE DEPlH <br />Water Loss Rates <br />Depth From Surface In Feet'" <br />0-5 5-10 10-15 <br />(Feet ) <br />3.3 3.0 2,5 <br />3.5 3,3 3.0 <br />2.0 1.6 1.2 <br />1.5 1,0 0.8 <br />4.0 <br /> <br />Cottonwood <br /> <br />Heavy brush (salt cedar) <br /> <br />Open brush and grass <br /> <br />Open areas <br /> <br />Cattails to open water <br />'" Includes effective precipitation <br /> <br />For purposes of canparison, estimates of consUlllptive use of water by <br />irrigated crops are shown in Table 4. The weighted average use for the area <br /> <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.