Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r... <br />to <br />~J <br /> <br />':,_.~ <br /> <br />(......., <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CHAPTER III <br /> <br />RIVER BUDGET RESULTS <br /> <br />The results of the salt and water budgets are displayed in Tables 4 <br /> <br />through 15, and Figures 4, 5, 7, and 8. The labels "State Line" and "Cisco" <br /> <br />refer to the outflow station used in the budget. "Adjusted" and "Unadjusted" <br /> <br />refer to whether or not the unaccounted flow was adjusted to zero. Shown on <br /> <br />the annual salt pickup graphs are the mean, and the regressi,)n line of pickup <br /> <br />against time. In addition, the Adjusted State Line graph sh,}ws two sets of <br /> <br />confidence limits, and two other means based on upper and lm.er bounds on <br /> <br />consumptive use. <br /> <br />It can be seen that the annual salt loading varies widely from <br /> <br />year-to-year. An attempt was made to smooth out the hydrologic variation by <br /> <br />"normalizing" with a hydrologic variable. Annual salt pickup was correlated <br /> <br />with the annual flow of the Colorado River near Cameo, the annual flow of the <br /> <br />Dolores River near Cisco, the annual salt loading of the DolC)res, mean annual <br /> <br />temperature, and annual precipitation. All the coefficients of determination <br /> <br />were less than 0.11 indicating that the variation of salt pickup is not <br /> <br />explained by any of the hydrologic phenomena examined. This suggests that <br /> <br />the variations in salt pickup are probably due to irrigation practices, <br /> <br />which, because the Grand Valley irrigators are essentially first on the river <br /> <br />and consequently have as much water as desired, do not depend on hydrologic <br /> <br />phenomena. <br /> <br />III-I <br />