Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I 0685 <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 />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />water by the Catlin canal Company and the delivery of <br />state water to special state headgates located along <br />the canal. Therefore, the historic pattern of return <br />flow from canal losses would not be altered. <br /> <br />This plan insures that proper amounts of water corre- <br />sponding to the second type of return flow would be left <br />in the Arkansas River system by limiting the average <br />annual storable water (column 4 plus column 6 in Table 7) <br />to the historic consumptive use (Table 6). <br /> <br />The critical return flow location is the Rocky Ford <br />headgate to protect the Fort Lyon-Holbrook exchange. In <br />this exchange, the Holbrook Mutual Irrigation company re- <br />leases water into the Arkansas River for diversion by the <br />Fort Lyon Canal company in return for direct diversion at <br />the Holbrook headgate. The critical parameter is the <br />adequacy of the river flow to satisfy the Rocky Ford decree. <br />During historic conditions shown in Table 7, which was pre- <br />pared after interviews with Catlin officials and inspection <br />of USGS topographic maps, only the irrigation of 77 acres <br />with 129.08 shares of Catlin stock through laterals 6 and <br />17 could have produced return flows above the Rocky Ford <br />headgate. These circumstances combined to produce 17 per- <br />cent of the total return flow resulting from the historic <br />use of the State-owned Catlin stock. <br /> <br />To protect this exchange, water would be made available <br />upstream of the Rocky Ford headgate by utilizing either <br />the Catlin wastegate as a State headgate or a separate <br />State headgate and setting the gate for the number of <br />shares required to deliver the proper amount of water. <br /> <br />The USGS assisted in the evaluation of return flow timing <br />patterns. Techniques5 used to calculate stream depletion <br />caused by well pumping were applied in reverse using re- <br />charge instead of groundwater withdrawals. The recharge <br />amounts were average monthly deep percolation calculated <br />in Appendix C since these actually are the amounts that <br />were returned historically. The applications were made <br />by repeating them over a lOO-year period. This time <br /> <br />-24- <br />