Laserfiche WebLink
Figure 17 presents ground water diversions (pumping) by year. Note that 1963, 1977, <br />and the 2000 through 2002 had high pumping estimates, corresponding to years of <br />reduced surface water availability. In recent years, 1993 and 1995 had low pumping <br />estimates, corresponding to a wet hydrologic years. <br />Figure 17 <br />Ground Water Diversion (Pumping) <br />1000000 <br />900000 <br />800000 <br />R <br />j, 700000 <br />r <br />'~ 600000 <br />L <br />V <br />~% 500000 <br />c <br />O <br />400000 <br />N <br />>_ <br />~ 300000 <br />~ 200000 <br />100000 <br />If measured or estimated ground water pumping information is available for specific <br />structures, StateCU will apply the ground water diversions provided in the historic <br />pumping volume file to meet consumptive use demands. As described in Section 4.7, the <br />Mum well associated with the Alamosa refuge was the only structure where such data <br />was used. <br />5.4 Estimated Actual Efficiencies <br />As described in the StateCU Documentation, the amount of surface water available to <br />meet the crop demand is the river headgate diversion less conveyance losses and <br />application losses. If the surface water supply exceeds the irrigation water requirement, <br />water can be stored in the soil moisture up to its water holding capacity. Note that ground <br />water is only pumped to meet the irrigation water requirement and associated application <br />losses. Therefore, ground water does not contribute to soil moisture storage. <br />Maximum efficiencies for surface water and ground water diversions are provided as <br />input to StateCU, as described in Section 4.5. Actual efficiencies are calculated based on <br />the amount of water used to meet crop demands and the application method (e.g. flood or <br />sprinkler). <br />cureport_6-2004.doc 43 of 48 June, 2004 <br />1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 <br />