Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br />: to explain away the depletions with seemingly coincidental <br />! changes in hydrology when there are alternative conclusions <br />( which might be reached with equal facility. Colorado, on <br />\the other hand, has isolated and adopted an interpretation <br />IOf th7 mass analyses which indicates that there have been no <br />. \postcompact, manmade depletions and that there is therefore <br />\no need to further investigate the depletions previously <br />'. found by others. <br />Background - Other Engineering Studies Showing Manmade <br />DeplEitions <br />There are at least four sources of information in which <br />------ <br /> <br />it has been concluded that the postcompact depletions of <br /> <br />Arkansas River water are attributable to manrnade causes as <br /> <br />opposed to hydrologic changes. In March of 1975, the <br />!Colorado State Engineer prepared a comprehensive report <br />, <br />I <br />entitled "Stream Depletion by Wells in the Arkansas River <br />Basin - Colorado." The purpose of this study was to deter- <br />mine "if the pumping of alluvial wells is significantly <br />depleting the Arkansas River and thus causing material <br /> <br />injury to senior surface water appropriators." Id., p. 1. <br /> <br />To evaluate the effects of well pumping, a water budget <br /> <br />method was selected to compare the water gains and losses in <br /> <br />the basin for the period 1940-1972. The water budget <br /> <br />equation utilizes streamflow, surface diversion, pumping, <br />and climatic data to determine a seasonal net gain or loss <br /> <br />to the river between Canon City and the stateline. Pumping <br /> <br />data were estimated to determine the consumptive use asso- <br /> <br />i <br />i <br />I. <br />i <br /> <br />ciated with the water pumped from wells. Mass diagrams <br /> <br />-4- <br /> <br />. <br />, <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />i. <br /> <br />;,j.~ <br />