<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 />
|