Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />significant change in the results of the analysis, and <br /> <br /> <br />the conclusions derived in this report will not be <br /> <br /> <br />changed, <br /> <br />9, Return flows from transmountain water supplies have not <br /> <br />been totally consumed and are a part of the measured <br /> <br />flows of the Arkansas River used in these analyses, <br /> <br />though not quantified for locations other than the Canon <br />City gage, Colorado law allows these return flows to be <br />totally consumed in the future and therefore, their con- <br />tinued existence in the river is not guaranteed under <br />present administrative conditions, These accretions to <br />the river es~imated to average approximately 60,000 acr~- <br />feet per year, may be masking other depletions which will <br />continue if these transmountain return flows are removed <br />from the river, The flows used in this analysis are <br />therefore subject to future depletion which would in- <br />crease the declines in flow indicated by this analysis. <br />For this reason, the estimated quantities of depletions <br />to streamflow are conservative. <br /> <br />10, The last two years of the study period (1983 and 1984) <br />have been high runoff years as evidenced by the Adjusted <br />Canon City flows. Based on historical patterns, the <br />occurrence of maximum usable stateline flows during these <br />