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 />7 <br /> <br />State Engineer and only recently made available to <br /> <br />Kansas, <br /> <br />Releases of reservoir storage bear transit losses <br /> <br />during deliveries on the Arkansas River, The calcu- <br /> <br />lated transit loss which is used for administrative <br /> <br />purposes is 0,7% per mile, The Colorado State Engi- <br /> <br />neer has estimated that the total transit loss from ~~ <br />~ ~-\:P" <br />the upper reservoirs to the Canon City gage averages r <br />- ,..oj..,b <br /> <br />7,6% and the transmountain reservoir releases have ~~~D~ <br /> <br />been reduced by this amount before subtracting thern~~~ <br />from the Canon City gaged flow, So far, Colorado ~(l &&~ <br />01'< t~b~l_ <br />has proposed making the adjustment for transit loss ~~:l <br />only for the period of 1975-1984, A more consistent~~~. <br />approach would be to use the transit loss adjUstment~~~ <br />for the complete period of record or not at all. <br />~ <br /> <br />Because of the different methods of adjusting the Canon <br /> <br />City gaged flow, two sets of data for the adjusted Canon <br /> <br />City flows have been developed. The first, Method A, <br /> <br />utilizes the transmountain diversion records for the <br /> <br />period of 1908 to 1984, without considering the reregula- <br /> <br />tion of storage in the three reservoirs, <br /> <br />The second, <br /> <br />Method B, uses the same adjustment as Method A for the <br /> <br />years of 1908 to 1974, but uses the adjustment derived from <br />