Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'.'. . o:-{ 'I ,~, <br />\ ~ J . '.... ~ <br /> <br />Note: Pages 2 and 3 are reversec <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />This report is the fourth in a series of studies of Kansas streamflow char- <br />acteristics undertaken as a part of the cooperative programs for water re- <br />sources investigations between State of Kansas agencies and the U, S. Geo- <br />logical Survey. Technical Report No. 1 in the seriesl shows the percent of <br />time that streamflow of a given magnitude can be expected to be equaled or <br />exceeded. The second technical report2 shows the frequency at which the an- <br />nual minimum flow for periods of given length may fall below various average <br />rates. The third report3 evaluates the magnitude and frequency of flood dis- <br />charges. This report, the fourth of the series, extends the previous low-flow <br />studies to longer periods of consecutive months and evalua tes the adequacy of <br />different storage capacities to sustain low flow of the streams above various <br />rates. Other analyses are now in process to delineate other streamflow char- <br />acteristics such as the amount of storage required to control maximum rates <br />of runoff and the proportion of streamflow derived from ground water. <br /> <br />Future use of water in Kansas can be expected to increase considerably, <br />but the geographic distribution of the increased use will depend largely on the <br />availability of water. The availability depends on the total quantity of water, <br />which cannot be increased, and' on the supply available duri ng periods of drought <br />when shortages are most likely to occur. Sound water management and devel- <br />opment programs can partly overcome deficiencies in natural supplies during <br />drought periods. Streamflow, for example, can be stabilized by reservoir stor- <br />age to carry flood runoff into periods of droughts, <br /> <br />Information on storage requirements could be based on the worst drought <br />experienced during the period of operation of a gaging station at the site, but <br />this procedure would not define how frequently the storage would be inadequate, <br />To be more useful, the storage requirements could be based on the frequency <br />of low flows experienced in the period of operation of the gaging station, but <br />this procedure would result in misleading data in basins that had experienced <br />a preponderance of either floods or droughts not typical of the long-term ex- <br />perience in the general region, The future expectancy of storage requirements <br />needed for planning purposes would best be defined if records were available <br />over a long-term period at all sites. Such a goal cannot be attained with the <br />records now available, and the task of obtaining natural flow records in the <br />future will be complicated by the effects of man-made regulation. In the ab- <br />sence of long-term records at all sites, correlation techniques have been used <br />to extend all records to the 37 -year base period April 1920 to March 1957, <br /> <br />1 Furness, L, W., 1959, Kansas streamflow characteristics, pt. 1, Flow dura- <br />tion: Kansas Water Resources Board, Tech. Rept. No.1. <br /> <br />2 Furness, L. W" 1960, Kansas streamflow characteristics, pt. 2, Low-flow <br />frequency: Kansas Water Resources Board, Tech. Rept, No.2, <br /> <br />3 Ellis, D. W., and Edelen, G. W" Jr., 1960, Kansas streamflow character- <br />istics, pt. 3, Flood frequency: Kansas Water Resources Board, Tech. Rept. <br />No.3. <br />