Laserfiche WebLink
<br />12 <br /> <br /> <br />f~ (1, <br />.~' l <br /> <br />~ '; <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />The $urplus would be greater than that estimated if the actual acreage <br />irrigated were found to be less than that estimated. <br /> <br />If the assumed irrigation efficiency is actually less than 60 percent, <br />the water requirements would be greater than estimated and the surplus would <br />be less (or shortages would be greater). <br /> <br />Water Districts 3, 4, 5, and 6 <br /> <br />1. The total annual supply of water available to Water District 3, 4, 5, <br />and 6 is generally adequate for agricultural needs, although not always avail- <br />able at optimum times. Increasing urbanization of these areas is bringing <br />increasing pressures on water supplies and undoubtedly will continue to do so <br />even more in the future. <br /> <br />2. The natural runoff available to water users within the area under <br />study varies considerably from year to year as influenced by widely fluctu- <br />ating climatic conditions. For instance, the lowest annual natural supplies <br />for the several water districts have been only 30 to 40 percent of the aver- <br />age annual values. In addition, the natural runoff pattern within each year <br />does not match the pattern of need. The many surface storage facilities <br />constructed by ditch and reservoir companies have greatly alleviated the <br />latter situation by the short-term storage of surplus spring runoff for use <br />in late summer and fall. But these, in general, are not of great value for <br />long-term storage. In order to more fully regulate the natural runoff and <br />provide storage to bridge a series of low-runoff years, larger and more ex- <br />pensive onstream reservoirs would be required. Recent studies by the U. S. <br />Bureau of Reclamation of such possibilities in Water Districts 3, 5, and 6 <br />have led to the conclusion that the benefits derived would not exceed the <br />costs und~r present conditions. <br /> <br />3. Of the four water districts, only Water District 3 has a significant <br />groundwater development. Water District 3 has approximately 900 irrigation <br />wells, but another 700 are just outside Water District 3 in the Lone Tree and <br />Crow Creek Valleys. The principal recharge to these 700 wells is from ditches <br />originating within Water District 3. Less than 200 irrigation wells are <br />located in the remaining water districts (4, 5, and 6) and are generally of <br />rathern small capacity. <br /> <br />4. The addition of COlorado-Big Thompson Project water has materially <br />augmented and stabilized the total water supply of the area. This augmen- <br />tation has not only been by direct use of the Project water but also indir- <br />ectly through increased return flows available to lower ditches. In addition, <br />for those water users fortunately situated over productive alluvial aquifers, <br />groundwater has provided a stabilizing supplemental supply. Both the C-BT <br />supplies and the groundwater supplies are especially important and valuable <br />because (aJ they are available on demand and (b) they can be called upon <br />heavier during extended drought periods, thus tending to serve the purpose <br />of long-term storage facilities. In addition, the C-BT Project water has <br />been an important factor in the urban growth of these areas. If this growth <br />would have, had to rely entirely upon the transfer of agricultural water, it <br />would have greatly affected the agricultural economy. <br /> <br />l <br /> <br />.,:.., JL_ <br /> <br />~ ;~iiL&J <br />