Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0:1910 <br /> <br />copy <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />For the combined areas. the estimated average annual water <br />production above the collection system for different water <br />supply periods may be snmm~Tized as follows: <br /> <br />1911-1953 <br />1934-1953 <br />1931-1940 <br /> <br />- - - - - - - - - <br /> <br />Runof f Above <br />Collection System <br />Areas 1 and 2 <br />Combined <br />(May - July) <br /> <br />82,000 Acre-feet <br /> <br />Water Supply <br />Period <br /> <br />~ - - <br /> <br />74.000 " <br />66,000 " <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />The portion of the runoff originating above a collection <br />system which may actually be divertible by the system depends <br />on the design of the canals and tunnels comprising the system. <br />the difficQlties which may be encounte;,ed if! opening the <br />ditches each year, and their maintenance ihroughout the diversion <br />season. It is not economically practicable to c~nDtruct canal~ <br />with capacities large enough to intercept all of the renoff <br />durinq the few days of paa.k flow in ~ars which are above the <br />average in water produ(,tiOll. It is also not always practicable <br />to complete the opening ~f,qanals in time to capture all of th~ <br />May runoff in some years, and there are transportation 10ss'3s in <br />ditches due to seepage and occasional breaks in the banks. It <br />is my opinion tt~t a project intercepting the areas as shown on <br />the filing maps, with sufficient regulatory capacity provided, <br />could reasonably be expected to deliver an average of 60,000 to <br />65,000 acre-feet annually to the Arkansas basin. There WDuld be <br />some reduction in the yield at the point where the water might be <br />used because of transportation charges in natural stream channels. <br />dependinq on the distance between the tunnel portal on Lake Fork <br /> <br />~~~ .~~ ~~~~ -~ ~~---~~-- <br /> <br />&.-- --~--, --- <br />