Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c' <br />,. <br /> <br />'.~ .'.. <br /> <br />< <br /> <br />C) <br /> <br />N <br />en <br />.... <br />(,il <br /> <br />- 4 - <br /> <br />reasons for the poor results may be: <br />(a) Local storm runoff below Caddoa is erratic <br /> <br />in occurrence and may affect evaluation of accretions; <br /> <br />although the winter accretions were used to reduce this <br /> <br /> <br />possibility. <br /> <br /> <br />(b) Changes in ground water storage and increased <br /> <br /> <br />pu~r~ge over the period studied has, no doubt, affected <br /> <br /> <br />the nature and quantity of the return flows. While there <br /> <br />are no observation wells in the river reach studied, <br />well levels near Rocky Ford have decreased from 5 to 10 <br /> <br />feet in the last 10 to 20 years. <br /> <br />From this study it is apparent that unless a <br />fairly consistent relationship can be derived for <br /> <br />diversions versus accretions for the period prior to <br />John j'iartin storage (1943) evaluation of return flow <br />benefits in Colorado due to this reservoir cannot <br /> <br />be evaluated. <br /> <br />It should be noted on Fig. 1, that the variation of the <br /> <br />aRRlial 9alQl:j91u' Y9~r precipitation as indicated beside the plotted <br /> <br />values show a general consistency of low accretions with the <br />occurrence of dr,v years. <br /> <br />, <br />