Laserfiche WebLink
<br />O~\~1 c,g <br />U:i) u.J..J, <br /> <br /> <br />- 10 - <br /> <br />During a thirteen year period (1929-1941) there was only one year <br /> <br /> <br />that slightly exceeded the average and the average for these thirteen years <br /> <br />was only 33Q,OOO acre-feet. <br />There is no apparent trend or pattern in the return flow records. <br /> <br />\'ihile the average of 340,000 acre-feet at Julesburg is 64% of the <br /> <br />l,ersey flow,of 532,000 there were four years in the first decade of the <br /> <br />century above this average and five in the last 20 years. <br /> <br /> <br />Part of the Julesburg flows derive from surplus basic flows at Kers~, , <br /> <br /> <br />part from occasional flash floods in the valley and the remainder from <br /> <br />actual return flows from the reservoirs and irrigated lands. <br />It seems impossible to make an accurate estimate of the proportion <br /> <br />of each source. <br /> <br />If we select the twenty years of the fifty-eight at Kersey with <br />discharges nearest the average and with no recorded flood flows in the v8.l~eyt~ <br />we get an average of 523,000 acre-feet at !,ersey and 251,000 at Jules\lurg.: <br />Assuming this as the average return flow for all years, we find it to be <br />about 74% ot the long-time Julesburg mean of 340,000 acre-feet. <br />Regarding surplus basic flows, the twenty-four years of record at <br />Kersey which exceeded 500,000 acre-feet per year averaged 810,000 or <br />280,000 above the full fifty-eight year average. <br />The following table summarizes the flows at the three recording <br /> <br />stat~.ons by months and three month periods. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />" <br /> <br /> <br />i4 J <br /> <br />, ',. '.L, ~_,,~., _.,1<.. ~>_'>"J:4k,~ ,; <br /> <br />~" ' <br />, ' <br />'~".". <br />'- ~. - - ~ - <br />" _' -;~';t:'--,----' ji-~ <br />...";c,.~ ~. ~,""" <br />