Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1823 <br /> <br />Operational Losses of Water <br /> <br />There are three types of losses in the operational analysis of the water bank. These losses are <br />applied to the consumptive use portion of the FLec sMres which has previously been determined. <br />The first is carriage losses inside the FLee system, Th~se losses in the internal delivery system can <br />I <br />be attributed to the main canal, the storage canal, and the lateral canals. Based upon system- <br />, ' <br />widwater balance studies as part of the Kansas vs, Colorado litigation, main canal losses average <br />about 30 percent of the diverted water. Portions of this ~mount return to the river in the return flow <br />component, are pumped by wells or are consumed by evaporation and phreatophytes. Lateral losses, <br />estimated at 10 percent system-wide, suffer a similar fate. Similarly, the storage canal losses are 17 <br />percent of water diverted to storage. An estimated 11.56 percent of all deliveries of water to storage <br />along the 58-mile length is consumed in the storage canal and the remaining loss portion is included <br />in the return flow allowance. Data in Table 7.1 reflec~ the water balance apportionment of these <br />losses between consumed waters (permanently lost) and ~eepage waters, stored in underlying aquifers <br />or transported to the Arkansas River via groundwate~ movement as return flows, Details of the <br />apportionment are shown in Table A3.5 in the Appen~ix. <br /> <br />River transit losses are the second type of loss. River losses have been estimated using a report by <br />Livingston (U.S. Geological SUIVey 1978) which has been accepted by the winter water storage <br />program and the State Engineer, Transit loss under thtl Livingston method is calculated as a volume <br />, <br />per mile of channel and is sensitive to four primary variables: antecedent flow rate in the river (cfs), <br />the rate of a planned reseIVoir release (cfs), durationjof the release (days) and location along the <br />river. The method is applicable from Pueblo ReseIV9ir to John Martin Dam in six subreaches, a <br />channel distance of 142 miles. By agreement, a form of the Livingston method is applied below John <br />Martin ReseIVoir. Within the scope of the research, losses can vary from 0.043 percent per mile at <br />high flows to 0,481 percent per mile at low flows of 5 cfs. Over 80 percent of the transit losses are <br />due to temporary storage of water in the banks. Only !lbout 10 percent of water is permanently lost <br />to phreatophytes consumption and evaporation. i Overall, the river reaches have similar <br />characteristics. For the purposes of estimation, two rbaches were used for this FLWB operational <br />analysis: Pueblo ReseIVoir to the FLCC headgate andlFLCC headgate to John Martin Dam. As an <br />example, for a requirement of 220 af/month at the FILcc headgate (89.6 river miles below Pueblo <br />ReseIVoir), a reseIVoir release of 4.0 cfs or 246 af wOliId be needed if the existing base flow rate is <br />500 cfs. The loss would be 0.132 percent per mile. iActual losses are computed based on actual <br />conditions. <br /> <br />The third type of loss is evaporation from storage. St~ndard practices were used in the analysis. For <br />Pueblo ReseIVoir, an annual percentage of 7 percen~ of contents of a storage account, varying on <br />a monthly basis, was considered similar to the ~sessments imposed by the U.S. Bureau of <br />Reclamation. For storage in Adobe Creek ReseIVoit, evaporation loss was assessed as the FLCC <br />estimates it, at 4.0 percent of capacity per month over the summer diversion season of seven months <br />(Smith 1993). <br /> <br />7-18 <br />