My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04394
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04394
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:55:16 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:18:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.43.A
Description
Grand Valley/Orchard Mesa
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
12/22/1994
Title
The Grand Valley of Colorado
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Water Users Association system are deliveries of water to laterals based on orders or requests; <br />in other systems, water is simply turned into laterals on the basis of the direct flow rights held <br />by the users (e.g, if the sum total of the flow rights held by users on a lateral is x cubic feet <br />per second, then a constant flow of x second feet is maintained in the lateral so long as <br />- sufficient water is available to do so). <br />For the most part, irrigators in the Grand Valley Water Users Association who are on <br />laterals now supplied from the improved canaI and pipeline system seem happy with the <br />changes, One unexpected effect is the flip-flopping of advantages and disadvantages of <br />location on the lateral. In the old earthen ditch system, irrigators at the head of the system <br />enjoyed fIrst crack at the water and could be sure to get their water if any flowed into the <br />ditch, while those at the end of the ditch might sometimes find themselves with little or no <br />supply, With water in pipes, irrigators at the end of the lateral find that they have the best <br />pressure and a full supply while those at the top of the system do not have much pressure to <br />take advantage of. The cleaner water makes use of siphon tubes and surge systems easier <br />since there are fewer obstructions to be cleared. The improved on-fIeld irrigation systems <br />tend to be much less labor intensive than the traditional methods used in the area. <br />Through Fiscal Year 1993, federal investment in salinity control in the Grand Valley <br />totaled over $123 million.25 As a result, annual salinity additions from the Grand Valley are <br />estimated to have been reduced by -85,766 tons.26 Is this a good investment? <br />Unswprisingly, opinions vary considerably. Though estimates of actual damages from salinity <br />vary widely, some believe that more has been spent in the Grand Valley on salinity control <br /> <br />" Personal communication from David Trueman, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake <br />City, Utah, Oct. 28, 1994. <br /> <br />" !Q, The on-farm effons supponed through the Soil Conservation Service are estimated to have produced <br />salinity reduction of 61,500 tons per year. Salinity Update, March 1994, at IS. <br /> <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.