Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OD[l807 <br /> <br />averages, from 12,500,000 A.F, annually, or about 75 <br />per cent of normal, as during 1931 to 1940, to 20,- <br />000,000 A,F, annually during previous and more <br />favorable ten-year cycles. <br />It is therefore apparent that extensive regulatory <br />storage capacity would be required to equalize the <br />streamflows and regulate the original water produc- <br />tion to its average of 16,600,000 A,F. annually, or so <br />much thereof as may remain after natural convey- <br />ance losses are deducted. Some of the required capac- <br />ity, to command the production near the State's <br />borders, may be ignored as it would be wholly with- <br />out benefit to Colorado, From all additional reser- <br />voirs, and from their greater exposed water sur- <br />faces there would, unavoidably, be increased evapora- <br />tion losses, Sites in Colorado, above the places of <br />intended use, are not plentiful, and to comment that <br />such a program would be expensive seems unneces- <br />sary, In general, it may be said that complete equal- <br />ization of Colorado's water resources through regula- <br />tory reservoirs is neither feasible nor possible; and <br />that physical and financial limitations prohibit the <br />construction of storage works of sufficient capacity <br />to prevent reservoir spills in years of maximum run- <br />off and hence to provide carryover storage from wet <br />to dry decades, <br /> <br />Regulatory Reservoir <br />The construction of regulatory reservoirs, to pro- <br />vide carryover storage from one wet year to a fol- <br />lowing dry year, has proven infeasible, in several <br />instances, for physical or financial reasons, or both. <br />In fact, in connection with many of the water proj- <br />ects under investigation in Colorado, we find some <br />difficulty in the promotion of reservoir developments <br />that will provide regulation and carryover storage <br />from winter months to the following summer season, <br />and from the snow melt period in early summer to <br />the chronically deficient late summer months of the <br />same season. With these practical considerations in <br />mind, and because the needs for supplemental water <br />supplies are commonly greatest during years and <br />cycles of drouth, when water production is least, our <br />attention should be directed, not so much to long- <br />time average values, but more largely to climatic <br />cycles when production quantities are minimum, <br />To illustrate the sub-normal conditions of record, <br />we have selected the drouth year of 1934, and the <br />drouth cycle of 1931 to 1940, which in Colorado com- <br />monly represent near-minimum conditions, The fol- <br />lowing table presents comparisons with long-time <br />average values at several stream gaging stations. <br /> <br />Minimum Annual Stream Flows <br />In Relation to Long-Time Averages <br />L"nl'-Tine Period 1~31-1940 <br />Av~ral"e. Year 19M AVl'r...el <br />1000 1.001) Per 1.000 Per <br />A,F.. A,F, Cent A,F, Cent <br />1900-1940 2,162 987 46 1,703 79 <br />1895-1940 557 304 55 443 80 <br /> <br />River <br /> <br />Period <br /> <br />Colorado (a) <br />Arkansas (b) <br />Cache Lll <br />Poudre (e) 1895-1940 320 <br />Green (d) 1895-1940 4,992 <br />Colorado (el 1897-1940 14,381 <br />Colorado (f) 1897-1940 16,199 <br />Notes: . -Assume at 100 per cent, <br />(3) At Glenwood Springs, Coloratlo, as recorded, <br />(b) At Canon City, record corrected for by-passed <br />and imported quantities, <br />(e) At Canon .Mouth, record corrected for by-passed <br />and imported quantities, <br />(d) At Green River, Utah, as recorded, <br />(e) At Lee Ferry, Arizona, recent years as recorded, <br />earlier }"eaTS as calculated, <br />(f) At Lee Ferry Arizona, estimated virgin flow, <br />after allowances for assumed upstream deple- <br />tions. <br /> <br />145 45 <br />1,214 24 <br />3,966 28 <br />5,486 34 <br /> <br />244 76 <br />3,356 67 <br />10,167 71 <br />12,210 75 <br /> <br />From the above and other streamflow and trans- <br />mountain diversion records, it appears that runoff <br />from high-mountain areas (more than half of which <br />commonly occurs in periods of 4 to 8 weeks) may be <br />expected to decline to 50 per cent of normal in a <br />single drouth year, and to about 80 percent of normal <br />during the average year of ten-year drouth cycles, <br />On this basis the existing and contemplated trans- <br />mountain diversions from the Colorado river system <br />for use in eastern Colorado, estimated to average <br />2,000,000 A,F, annually may be expected to average <br />1,600,000 A,F, annually during ten-year drouth cy- <br />cles, such as 1931-1940, and to decline to about 1,000,- <br />000 A,F, in a year of severest drouth conditions, such <br />as 1934, unless carryover storage from wet to dry <br />years be provided so as to increase the minimum year <br />yields, <br /> <br />Accompanying the below-average or sub-normal <br />vields of trans-mountain diversion projects during <br />drouth cycles, the demands for supplemental irriga- <br />tion supplies at such times are above-average, Ab- <br />normal demands for irrigation water result from <br />concurrent deficiencies in local precipitation and <br />water production, Furthermore, under such condi- <br />tions, the lands and crops require greater and more <br />frequent irrigations, for the reason that losses of <br />soil moisture are increased because of the higher <br />temperatures, increased wind movement, greater at- <br />mospheric aridity, and above average rates of evap- <br />oration that characterize the climatic conditions in <br />Colorado during drouth cycles, <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />U .balanced Relation <br /> <br />With respect to the second problem, of an un- <br />balanced relation between the water and land re- <br />sources of the State, it may be noted that, over the <br />104,000 square miles of State area, the total produc- <br />tion of 16,600,000 A.F. in an average year is at the <br />rate of 160 A,F, per square mile of area, In this <br />connection the extremes range from ,zero in a few <br />closed basin areas, to runoffs of more than 2,000 A,F, <br />per square mile in several small tribu tary valleys, <br />Considered by major stream basins, the runoff rate <br />is least, averaging but 23 A,F, per square mile in the. <br />Kansas river basin in eastern Colorado, and is great- <br />est in the North Platte basin where the average rate <br />is 405 A,F, per square mile, <br /> <br />Of direct application to the Colorado-Big Thomp- <br />son and Blue-South Platte projects are the runoff <br />rates of 84 A,F, per square mile in the South Platte <br />river basin, and 338 A,F, per square mile in the Colo- <br />rado river basin; and to the Gunnison-Arkansas proj- <br />ect are the runoff rates of 41 A.F, per square mile in <br />the Arkansas river basin, and 343 A,F, per square <br />mile in the Gunnison river basin, Comparing all of <br />western Colorado with the South Platte, Kansas and <br />Arkansas river basins in eastern Colorado, the runoff <br />rates are 293 A,F, per square mile on the West Slope, <br />and 53 A,F, per square mile on the East, <br /> <br />Expressed another way, western Colorado with <br />37 per cent of the land area has 68 per cent of the <br />State's water resources, and eastern Colorado with <br />54 per cent of the land area has but 18 per cent of <br />the water resources, Land areas and water resources <br />of Colorado are distributed by stream basins as fol- <br />lows: <br />