Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />n'" f14,"'" I <br />U '., ,,' .: :"" '-t <br /> <br />system. <br /> <br /> <br />The same holds true for a transmountain diversion of 500 <br /> <br /> <br />acre-feet into a municipal system. Some 200 or 300 acre-feet <br /> <br /> <br />would be e~pected to return to the stream system. One should <br /> <br /> <br />realistically expect a little over half of the amount of <br /> <br /> <br />Metropolitan Denver area transmountain diversions to reappear in! <br /> <br /> <br />the South Platte River system as a return flow of one sort or <br /> <br /> <br />another. For instance, in 1978 transmountain diversions and <br /> <br /> <br />exercise o~ South park transfer brought some 235,000 acre-feet <br /> <br /> <br />into the Metropolitan Denver area. If half of this amount <br /> <br /> <br />expressed itself as return flow over the course of a year, the <br /> <br /> <br />effect would be to increase streamflow by an average of over 160 <br /> <br /> <br />cfs. Under the same assumption for 1978, the almost 289,000 <br /> <br /> <br />acre-feet of imported water by the Grand River Ditch, the Eureka <br /> <br /> <br />Ditch, an~ the Alva B. Adams Tunnel would increase South Platte <br /> <br /> <br />River system flows by almost 200 cfs. <br /> <br /> <br />Reviewing Table 4 and Figure 4, how do these importations <br /> <br /> <br />and introductions of water relate to changes in call patterns as, <br /> <br /> <br />against metropolitan users of tributary water rights? Do the <br /> <br /> <br />"newer" importations and introductions of waters, by the Roberts <br /> <br /> <br />Tunnel, by the Aurora-Homestake pipeline, and by the South park <br /> <br /> <br />Transfers, really result in changes in call patterns? <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 5 displays these importations by use of plots of <br /> <br /> <br />cumulative curves representing the total amounts of imported <br /> <br /> <br />waters through various sources, beginning with the year 1941. <br /> <br /> <br />Certain trends become apparent from inspection of Figure 5. <br /> <br /> <br />First, Figure 5 shows a rather rapid increase, beginning around <br /> <br /> <br />1950, in the downstream importations under the Grand River Ditch,: <br /> <br /> <br />-l2- <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />.} <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />;~ <br />, <br />if <br /> <br />,,{~ <br />.; <br /> <br />J; <br />,it- <br />.~ <br /> <br />{' <br />~ <br />; <br /> <br /> <br />i <br />+ <br /> <br />:;: <br /> <br />-'~- <br />; <br /> <br />x <br /> <br />,') <br />,'.) <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />:'/ <br /> <br />,~. <br /> <br />';, <br />, <br /> <br /> <br />,;: <br /> <br />1; <br /> <br />;1: <br />e; <br /> <br />