Laserfiche WebLink
<br />53 <br /> <br /> <br />001874 <br /> <br />precipitation is approximately equal to the losses'that would have <br /> <br />occurred in the stream reach had the reservoir not been constructed. <br /> <br />The measurements and calculations all show that seepage <br /> <br />losses can vary greatly depending mainly on geologic conditions <br /> <br />within and surrounding the reservoir and on the depth of water in the <br /> <br />pond. In the measurements on reservoir. losses in central Arizona <br /> <br />reported by Langbein, the seepage varied from 0'.0'5 to 0.3 foot per <br /> <br />. month which was about one-third of the evaporation. Each of the <br /> <br />reservoirs measured was underlain by a thick soil mantle over- <br /> <br />laying fine-textured, sedimentary rocks or dense, igneous rocks. <br /> <br />Seepage under these conditions should be at a low ~ate. In a study <br /> <br />o{ stock ponds in the Cheyenne basin of Wyoming by Culler (1961), <br /> <br />the analysis of the losses at 58 stock ponds showed that annual <br /> <br />seepage loss from individual ponds variedJrom a minimum of one- <br /> <br />tenth of the evaporation to a maximum of nearly 18 times the eva- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />po ration. The average seepage loss for all ponds was about 1. 5 <br /> <br />times the evaporation. Ponds with the low seepage losses were <br /> <br />located in areas underlain by dense shales; those with high losses <br /> <br />in areas underlain by previou~ sandy soils overlaying loosely <br /> <br />consolidated sandstone and conglomerate. <br /> <br />" <br />