WSP03609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1"::~ ... ~ r" 1 Table 6 d.scribes the overall percent of time for each month of. the year that calls on District 8 came from District 2. Table 6i therefore~ would indicate that for eight months of the year (November through June), calls from District 2 have been more numerous. Table 6, however, does not speak to the relation of seniority of calls from within Water District 2. Table 6 indica-+ tes that during the latter part of the irrigation season (July through september), calls from District 2 occur less frequently in the 1964-l98l period, compared with the 1941-l963 period. ',~, CONCLUSIONS ?F Is Thsps No~ Mops Watsp EsZo~ Dsnvsp Than Esfops? The call analyses described herein indirectly indicate that. there has 'been more water below Denver in the 1964-l981 period than in the 1941-1963 period. The comparisons of importations o~ transmountain waters, together with waters developed from South Park Tran~fers, also strongly suggest an increased physical availability of water below Denver. Havs Divi~ionaZ CaZZ Pattepns Changsd? Divisional call patterns upon Metropolitan Denver water users hav~ clearly changed between the 1941-1963 period and the 1964-l981,period. In the irrigation season in the Metropolitan area, junior water rights stay in priority much longer than they formerly did. However, in the winter season, divisional calls against Metropolitan water users have clearly increased in severity. "; -17- L "",,,".;C, '....<'. t< J:~ 'k --~A."" - -~, ,j~~JiJ __.,. , "h"",~, 'c_