, ..
System Modeling Techniques
Applications To Arkansas River Studies
Colorado College
Department of Economics
Professor Mark Griffin Smith
James F. Wilson
June 18, 1992
Tel.
(719)
389-6411
Model Components
Building Blocks
Flow
E
iDi
3
s
Units flow through
these conduits,
same
units as
stocks but
include time dimension.
Example Diagram
Stock
,
Stocks accumulate or
collect flows, you see
stocks if system activity
was
frozen in time.
Native Flow 2
calculated
by multipling volume by
profile value during each
time increment
o
FlFlow profile expressed
in percent of total per
time period
Native Flow 2
Profile NF2
Annual Volume NF2
Lover Conduit
Twin Lakes
Volume can be
changed to create
alternate scenarios
Converter
Convert inputs to
outputs,
represent
information or
quantities.
Lake Creek flow
rate adjusted to
represent flow regime
Lake Creek
Connectors
0--01.
Link stocks to
con-verters and concon-verters
to converterslcreats
linkages and feedback
Ark 6
0
Lake Creek connected
to mainstream of
Arkansas River
Hydrology Model
Western Slope Diversion Diversion Profile Volume Diverted eveporalm ace °ease Frolic T2Upper Cordult Volume Released 12 Nalve Flow 2 Flow Proffitt NF2 Annual Volume NF2 Twin Lakes Tunnel
evap rate Lake Fork Creek
•
eservolr Vdurne Released TI Release Promo TI ewer Conduit Twliakes aversion Promo rt. Clear Creek Volume Diverted TL Clear LabFlow Profile CC Annual Vdurne CC
•
a Cr•
Volume Released TL Release Profile .11 Clear La °leases Homestak Volume Released CL Release Promo CL &Dull Arkansas Flow Prolle SA arch nseas 1Annual Volume Arkl
141°
Or io Gage Homestake Pipeline Pus rstake w cs• We! v11 Gage N17414S,Pief SA Flow Profile TC•
Annual Volume TC r4Z) Volume Diverted HS•
•
Dlversion Profile HS Homestake Diversion Rate•
ale Gage
Fountain Valley Conduit Puebl Reservoir
•
•
Volume Released PRI Release Prolie pnPue o Release
•
Vnturn. Rr4,,rvi PP
Release Prolle PRI
Economic Models
• DallyA•• Value User Profile C • erelal
Comm lal 13 Irg Value • 11) Daly • Value 2 Private oatIng Yearly Use Yearly Use 2
•
Total Commercial Value
•
ornrrpercial Value Total Private Value
•
•
•
User Prom() Private Fisting Value
•
User Profile Fishing
Curn Private Value Total R • on Value Total Fishing Value
Cum Fisting Value e Use 3
••
DaHyAgg Valve 3
Pueblo Reservoir
Cum Agricultural Value Agricultural Va
Marginal Value Per Acre Foot
1: Lake Fork Cr... 2: Mt Elbert Co... 3: Turquoise La.
1
3.61e+09
2
5.93e+09
3
1.00e+10
4
3.61e+09
5
5.00e+07
1
1.80e+09
2
2.96e+09
3:
5.00e+09
4:
1.80e+09
5:
2.50e+07
1 :
2:
3:
4:
5:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.. 4: Total Turquo... 5: Evaporation
.1•••••••Weeee.V.W.W...W.W.WerreeVeNV.W.WW•Ve•Y.N W•••••WW.wee•YeW.VV,•.... ••••.•• •WeeWeew...weeree.VW•Were•WWW.,,,,,,,,rW.V.AAAWA.AJVVAMWAMAAWAAAAA.W.W.WVAVAAhJ'AWA,W,
9<1l>2
1
.10•••••••••••••••••••••VANYVY.V.VI•Weee.W.,,,WeeVeer...W.YVVVVV.Y.W.W.V.A.V.W.W.W.V.WMPOOMMAAWAWMAAAAWMJA.W.VAY.W.W.,
wer.vere.w.v.vererreve.rernwerer.vrerrerreveveoernrverer.w. weve.weee.v...,wrorwveverree.w.,,,,Nve,rv.v.v.wereer,rerrerreeerrerrevyverreerreerreo, reververwe...,,w.N,Nve evvv.,,Nwe.ver. ervervrevere.wyrevewwrwerevvere.v.vewerewe.
IMMII
•.1
1.00
a
Page 1
3
411=5 21
51
4.00
7.00
Months
10.00
13.00
4:17 PM
5/12/92
,
1: Lake Fork Cr... 2: Mt Elbert Co... 3: Turquoise La... 4: Total Turquo... 5: Evaporation
1:
3.61
e+09-2
:
5.93e+09
3:
1.00e+10
4:
3.61e+09
5:
5.00e+07
9< >2
I
1
...WMAWAMMAM.W.KWAVAAWAM.W.WAMAW.VAVV~ •AAWAWAVA.WAAWAIMMAYMMAWAVAWAYMANAWAMA.W.WAJAWAWAJVW.WM.W.W.V.WAW.WM.W.W.P...W.MA1 :
1.80e+09
2:
2.96e+09
3:
5.00e+09-4
:
1.80e+09
5:
2.50e+07
1 :
2:
3:
4:
5:
aepp...,...w...,0.00
0.00
0.00
2
0.00 —
0.00 -1
41.15
1.00
4.00
Page 1
3
wrorolereemreerrerververrerrorreorwereverrerwe.weerneerrevereinwer, verreerrereeerevrerrer" ereerrerrevverrerrer.werem
I AWAVAWAWMAWAW...WAWAWMAYMMAWAWAWAVAWAWAWMAWAVAMMO}AVAMM,AAAAW.V.W.WAYMMAY, 1
5ar1
7.00
Months
:veer...erre eeeeee"Weeeee eeeeeee"WeeVeeeeeeeeWeVeVeVeeeer AAWMAMMAVAAMIALWAY.WAVV,AWA10.00 s 13.00
4:17 PM
5/12/92
,
•1: Lake Creek
2: Upper Lake Creek 3: Mt Elbert Conduit 4: Twin Lakes
1
1< t>3
I
1
21
3
4:
5.93e+09
1.00e+10
WAWAWJAWAVAWAYMAAAWAAAMAYAWM.VVV.V.WA •,
1
1 I2
2.96e+09
3
WWWWWW•Yeere0Wee•INWWWWWWeeineeeVe ...% •Weeeee•NYWAWW.Wee, eV...We. eeeeeVee• WeWeeVe. OVVV.,,V• ,,,,,Weeee•Wi ,,. weereeerree. Iverere ever re we veer err ewer ...we eer re 'weever.
4:
5.00e+09
I
I
11
1 :
L
3
2
0.00
.
I
1—/—.3
.
—1--%(
-3
13j
3
2
:r-2
-4
:
0.00,
1.00
a
Page 2
4.00
7.00
10.00
13.00
Months
4:17 PM
5/12/92
N.
1:
Turquoise La... 2: Twin Lakes
3: Wellsville Ga... 4: Turquoise Ca... 5: Twin Lakes ..-.
1 8< >1
1
1
2
3
41
5
1.00e+10
1
W...~.W.W.WAAWMAJWAWAWAWAW...0.4.40.W W...r...A.MI.O.W.V.W.W....W.W.M.WMAW.W.WOM:
1
I
i
1
SATMJAWM MAWAWAWMAIIIAPAAWAWAI 5WArAJAWIMOAAAWAAW.A.W.W.W,AAA.W.WMAJAWAW5
\I1
2
1
„
4
1
4
{
,...._,
3
4
5
5.00e+09
__________„___
1
—1
1
1
1
2
11
i
----
—.3----'
3
4
0.00
5
1.00
a
Page
9
4.00
7.00
10.00
13.00
.
Months
4:17 PM
5/12/92
,.,-,
Potential Applications
• Simulation of Water Transfer Impacts - Hydrologic and Economic
Examples Intra-Basin John Martin Reservoir
Great Plains Reservoirs
Inter-Basin
Colorado Canal
Rocky Ford Canal
Ft. Lyon Canal
• Simulation of Alternative Operating Procedures
Examples Winter Storage Program
Flow Augmentation
Exchange Agreements
Interactive-accounting model
of the Arkansas River basin
February 12,1988
developed by the U,3., Geological_S=ey,
Water Resources_ZiYi.aion in
cooperation with the SoutheaItern Colgrado_Hater Conseryancy District
Geographic Scope:
Hydrology:
Water Requirements:
Input Data:
Period of Study:
Ownership accounting:
Mainstem of the Arkansas River and alluvial
aquifer, headwaters to stateline.
Regressed upper basin streamflow and imports
based on snowpack, precipitation, and air
temperature; lower basin streamflow based
on historic tributary data and regression
with precipitation.
Mass balance accounting of the ground-water
in storage in the alluvial aquifer
adjacent to the mainstem as it is affected
by ground-water pumpage and by deep
percolation of excess irrigation
applications.
Computed dissolved-solids concentrations
based on regression with streamflow and
on the interaction with ground water.
Computed by model based on irrigated acreage
(for agricultural users) and population
(for municipal users), a Blaney-Criddle
estimate of evapotranspiration, and a
calibration factor.
Snowpack
Precipitation
Streamflow (tributaries)
Air temperature
1410
8
_6_
28
1940-85 [calibrated from 1943-74 and 1975-85]
All direct and storage diversions based on
doctrine of prior-appropriation.
Reservoir storages allocated to specific users:
Turquiose to Highline Canal
Twin Lakes to Colorado Canal
Clear Creek to Pueblo Water Works
Turquiose expansion to Fry-Ark Project
Twin Lakes expansion to Fry-Ark Project
Pueblo Reservoir to Fry-Ark Project
and winter-water program
John Martin distributed by percent to
District 67 ditches and Kansas
Downstream off-channel reservoirs to
Features:
Model output:
Model has 82 water users
including:
about 60 agricultural
ditches
Fryingpan-Arkansas
project
winter-water storage
program
municpal users
2 industrial users
11 reservoirs
Model does not include:
Homestake Project (imports
or exports)
varying rule curves
joint-use storage in Pueblo
Reservoir
Monthly printouts
of:
stream discharge
and dissolved-solids
concentration
and load at 39 nodes.
user needs, direct
diversions, reservoir
releases, ground-water
pumpage,
contributing precipitation,
and
recharge as deep percolation
and
tailwater for each of the
82 water
users.
ground-water storage
and concentration
of
dissolved solids for each
side of the
river at
39
nodes.
Tables of the individual
values for any of the
above mentioned parameters.
Hydrographs of the individual
values for any
of the above mentioned
parameters.
Statistical summaries
of the individual
values
for any of the above mentioned
parameters.
*Schematics (maps) of any
of the above parameters
DEPLETIONS AND
ACCRETIONS
PREDICTED
FOR AVERAGE,
WET
AND
DRY
YEARS USING ACCOUNTING MODEL
AVE
YEAR (assume 1991 pumping)
YEAR MO PUMPING TM DELIVERY DEPLETIONS ACCRETIONS NET DEPLETIONS
1993 4 7095 1801 1526 982 544 1993 5 13175 11782 1956 2077 -121 1993 6 14190 5881 2399 2087 312 1993 7 18241 33038 2834 3879 -1045 1993 8 22296 7996 3385 3266 119 1993 9 17227 1661 3706 2492 1214 1993 10 9122 0 3530 1964 1566 1993 11 0 0 2943 1650 1293 1993 12 0 0 2355 1441 914 1994 1 0 0 2001 1279 722 1994 2 0 0 1738 1154 584 1994 3 0 0 1535 1054 481 total 101346 62159 29908 23325 6583
DRY
YEAR (
assume 1981 pumping)
YEAR MO PUMPING TM DELIVERY DEPLETIONS ACCRETIONS NET DEPLETIONS
1993 4 15477 1801 1805 982 823 1993 5 24762 11782 2771 2077 694 .1993 6 23216 5881 3543 2087 1456 1993 7 30954 33038 4253 3879 374 1993 8 29407 7996 4948 3266 1682 1993 9 20121 1661 5079 2492 2587 1993 10 10834 0 4662 1964 2698 1993 11 0 0 3858 1650 2208 1993 12 0 0 3076 1441 1635 1994 1 0 0 2602 1279 1323 1994 2 0 0 2246 1154 1092 1994 3 0 0 1972 1054 918 tow 154771 62159 40815 23325 17490
WET
YEAR
(
assume 1988
pumping)
YEAR MO PUMPING TM DELIVERY DEPLETIONS ACCRETIONS NET DEPLETIONS
1993 4 5149 1801 1465 982 483 1993 5 9561 11782 1754 2077 -323 1993 6 10298 5881 2055 2087 -32 1993 7 13237 33038 2351 3879 -1528 1993 8 16181 7996 2739 3266 -527 1993 9 12503 1661 2956 2492 464 1993 10 6620 0 2805 1964 841 1993 11 0 0 2355 1650 705 1993 12 0 0 1905 1441 464 1994 1 0 0 1630 1279 351 1994 2 0 0 1428 1154 274 1994 3 0 0 . 1267 1054 213 total 73549 62159 24710 23325 1385
-700
TOTAL DEPLETIONS 1526
ES ACCR- this yew TOTAL AD:RET1ONS 982 =
I--El
AMR - prior yearsca w a cc
cc w
NET 544 ACRE-FEET w =
...—Z Q ii DEP - this year
_ • Ei DEP- prioryears • • . ... . ill.i.::::::i.:;•.:":: ....• i•5i::;•:::::::: •:•;•.•:::,.::•::• • • • ...:...:•:...:".:.:e. .:•-•::::::::::::: ...*:::*:••?::::::..• ..• ::•:::::::::::::: ,. • •
-.•. - mim
..• , • ' -4 1 .*-1.• w' • ..tatill, , •-,?-4 '' M ILIG 41`...4...vn
riltili #, 4ifiii4 ki 3;?.. ' • • rtntt010011 .4412 , s Z i 0 ")800
700
600
600
400
I-
•
300
u_
•
200
°
•
100
o
z 0
-100
a.
O-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
-DEPLETIONS AND ACCRETIONS -
MAY 1993
Eli
ACCR - prior years DEP-this yearDEP- prior years
TOTAL DEPLETIONS 1956 TOTAL ACCRETIONS 2077 NET -121 ACRE-FEET z 0
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
800
700
600
500
400
300
•
200
o:
O
•
100
z 0
0
-100
a.
o
•
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700 —
DEPLETIONS AND ACCRETIONS — JUNE 1993
01.011,1111.111111111111,
TOTALDEPLETIONS 2399
TOTAL ACCPETIONS 2087
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
EnlOOCCO000t
-800
700
600
500
400
it 300
ILI U..1 200
1= < 1 Z 0 0P.
-iii -I
—1 00a.
w
a -200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
DEPLETIONS AND
ACCRETIONS — AUGUST 1993
12 ACCR- this year
Ei ACC1:k- prior years
ili DEP-this year
0 DEP- prior yeers
NET ABOVE FORT LYON
1012 ACRE-FEET z P i 959 ACAE-FEET z x 0-, TOTAL DEPLETIONS 3335
TOTAL ACU :EDT'S 3266
NET 119 ACRE-FEET
NET ABOVE AMITY
...
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
800
700
600
500
400
L
300
111 U..1 200
u.i
cC
°
100
<
i
O
z °
i=
LI -100
-.1a.
usi
c
-200
-300
-400
-E00
-600
-700
DEPLErIONS AND ACCRETIONS -
SEPTEMBER 1993
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
800
700
600
500
400
300
!LI
LLI
200
cc
0 100
z 0
0
11-1 -1 00
C.
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
DEPLthiONS AND ACCRETIONS — OCTOBER 1993
ACCR- thisyear . .
TOTAL DEPLE11ONS 360
B
ACCR-prioryears . .TOTAL ACCREPONS 1964 =
,
ii DEP - this year
0 DEP- prioryears • -- - _ -: - • .. ;- .._,..._ - •
11.1111
• - - .. . . 0 ...;... en1.1 On come 1. Ill. . 52zig gi - - - ., • -,-:. • 11112 , ' ‘ :: : 71.1 \-v7.1.!! If14.44:!. 71w. \,,\:7
.,,,,,,, Figq,,,,‘.
....
kNO,... ., \ ' '.—,itit:.
" ‘,' , \:...
IBEER,,,,, .,
%,,
it
Mal ..& \ • X K \ Nk k • k \\:\, ,-1 ' \ \ ' _ ‘ .\\)..: \ \ \t \ \ \ • \ \\„ . ,„,„ „,,,,. . • a '... z i 0n1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ii
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
800
700
600
500
400
300
UJ U.200
z
O °
—100
—200
—300
—400
—500
—600
-700
DEPLETIONS AND ACCRETIONS -
NOVEMBER 1993
___... •
Di ACCR- Cis year
_
TOTAL DEPLETIONS 2943- - _-0 ACCR- prior years
— . TOTAL. ACCRETIONS 1650 x • I DEP-this year 0 ...r...AIML... 3
NET 1293 ACRE-FEET w ....a...._—
. -DEP- prioryeass - _ . . -• . - . - . . . .. . .. . _ • ii II • : • : • . . MB 1111WIMIlil . • • ••••,....,-.•:. I :::: :::::::::::: 1.1 ...._ =mi. • -...:...:.... • • • •. •• • ::•:":. • ',NM ''''" * "- w•\` '
m:val azorm Ran ZM ‘
:
P.A.99 ',„*."1"; , ls \ , . W\\ ' N " - / ' . • r' M. •im
•
0
,,,.,.\\. .,,,, , ...„
,.,..,,....„
..,. \\•
r
. :,,A.:
.
,.
,„,k.
N„,,
,
" . t ) A: nlio
•
•
..
,m
,\‘
\,:
‘*$ ''•.1,
A s
. Vs N\ \.• \ •%_. \• k \ .\ • V • . z P cc 4.---z I o --) _1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
HIM RIVER REACH
800 700 600 500 400 I— 300 LSI LLJ Ur 200 CC ° 100 Z 0 1:: ILI -100
a.
o
-200 -300 -400 -600 -600 -700DEPLETIONS AND ACCRETIONS -
DECEMBER 1993
ACCR-this year
. TOTALDEPLET1ONS 2355
a ACCR- pior years .
TOTAL ACCRETIONS 1441 z..._ I DEP-thisyear 0 DEP . . 0 La . cc NET 914 ACRE-FEET La prioryears • . . . . . . . - - -. -• • . . .: . 1 • . • . is - in
allEt
.. ::::::::::::::::„
...-
. .
. Ism..",
ENSI...
.
.
,::::::::::::
•
\ \>,b. ...:‘,... • 'e s-\\\.,,,,.„
\ \ ' . is. ,,, ,, \ \xN \\i RCM ..„z, ,,,,,,,,,,,N \ \ k \ \ • 1... I it,: 1 ;41,-- • ,,,,,\,,„, .\ ' \\\ ' .,gii,: '''-'.'1, 4\ \\ z1v.41;:: \ X, '__,
I W t Ii , o -, I z 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21800
700
600
500
400
300
111200
CCLo
e 100 ILI -100 O. L1.1-200
-300
-400
-600
-600
-700
DEPLETIONS AND ACCRETIONS -
JANUARY 1994
- -7
_ TOTAL DERETIONS 2001
ACCR 41 is yeer
Eli ACCR -prier years , •
I
DEP-this year Ei DEP- prior yearsTOTAL ACCRETIONS 1279 " NET 722 ACRE-FEET 3 w cr w . -. • . • .. . .. . -. -.-.-.-. •iii::::::-:::.: . . .. .. . . • .. -• • 1 1 -... El- mi3.:.::. . . • . • -• . MIMI - . . : 11811 . 3L'•.• k.Mit 7;77 ,,,,;,„,
,46f0"
16 ,,,:.:.. . • ... _ -• i -::::::::: sizagam .W\ :•:`%-.,,,z,.
k%
. .
•
q
n,,,,,•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
HIM RIVER REACH
800 700 600 600 400 300 ltt 200 UJ CC (*) 100 0 -100 11.1 0 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600 -700
DEPLETIONS AND ACCRETIONS — FEBRUARY 1994
ACCR- this year TOTAL DEPLETIONS 1738
9
ACCR- prior years• TOTAL
ACCRETIONS
1154 ..._F.II DEP -this year
a
cr NET 594 ACRE-FEET - _ 0 DEP- prioryears , . • _ --- . .. .:•:,:,..-.0..: .. . . ...—... • . • . _ .. . . .. . . gam ::::::.:.:.:....*::.:.::. ______ ... - • ---., -7.. ,•/-::::::.:::::.:il • • • • ' NN‘ ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ s 4'\\''''`" -"-:1 4F•ii, - t 1mm. \s •ic,) \ - , ,*44,,,-.„,z, . t.. , N1/4 • , ‘..1,: • (•:,.i. . „..„ ez.-.1..-.----..-., i;s:fs.,;..t. 0. -mc -f.,,-/f.-??, \ . cii, • • ; „,„ . - ,,s - •• •• • "N‘\\ • :. ‘v.k1 • . . Z P-• Z I 0 -)
1
2 3 ,4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16HIM RIVER REACH
800
700
600
600
400
I— 300
liJ L11th 200
cC
0
0
-100
a.
0-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
DEPLETIONS AND
ACCRETIONS -
MARCH 1994
•
Eg ACCR-this year
TOTAL DEPLETIONS 1535E1 ACCR-prioryears
TOTAL ACCRETIONS
1054 =... IDEP-this year
3w
cc
w
NET 481 ACRE-FEET
w
i
0DEP-prioryears
,
..
...
...
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
. .
.
: .;
. .
,
...
• .
-: i-.
. ..
• •
..
. ..
.
.
-,
1.
.
.
,
III .
,
.
.
RINE
•
...
.
; ..:.-..
....i.a.
En1:
gitil "itH
'
1
. ... •ig \W k \ * V V 4)4;,
'"" — ;an--i: 4-1W .,1 `\‘‘`"...•
,
.,.„„
..
•
.
.
\ .
„.\\\
z
. 4 . 'X Z I 0 ,1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
HIM RIVER REACH
Proposed analog model of the Arkansas Valley iii Colorado
The irrigation system in the Arkansas Valley originally was developed around surface-water supplies and storage. However, the amount of .surface water available varies appreciably in amount with climatic changes. The supply is not adequate throughout the irrigation season to all irrigated lands. Consequently, wells have been developed to provide supplemental water to crops during periods of deficient surface-water supplies. Most wells have been drilled since World War II and the number has more than doubled in the past 10 years. Irrigation wells were drilled and used, however, with little evaluation of their effect on the surface-water
supply. Unplanned development of the ground-water reservoir has caused a decrease in streamf low and works a hardship on those having surface-water rights downstream from the wells. To minimize adverse effects and to achieve maximum use of the available water supply, ground water and surface water must be developed and managed as a single supply, but
development and management cannot be planned properly until the operation of the hydrologic system is described quantitatively.
The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Southeastern Colorado Conservancy District is studying the Arkansas Valley in order to evaluate the hydrologic system so that the effects of selected changes in water management can
be predicted. Because of the large area, complex hydrologic interrelations, and bulk of data, quantitative evaluation of the hydrologic system
would be extremely difficult without the use of an analog model. The model is a tool for integrating and analyzing the hydrologic data. Ground-water, surface-water, and climatologic data will be simulated by the model to provide a comprehensive description of the hydrologic system and ,to duplicate present water-management effects on the system. When the model becomes a true analog of the system, then it can be used to predict, quantitatively, the effects of proposed changes in water management. The model will provide a basis for deciding what pattern of pumping and rate of ground-water and surface-water use will 'be most efficient.
The 174 mile reach of the Arkansas Valley from Canon City to the State line will be modeled. The width of the area studied ranges from 1 to 10 miles, depending on the areal extent of the valley-'fill aquifer. The basic framework of the model is the ground-water reservoir (physical character and boundaries). Superimposed on this framework are the
irrigation canals, the river, and recharge to and discharge from the ground-water reservoir. Adequate representation of the ground-water system, the irrigation canals, and the Arkansas River will require a scale of 4 inches per mile.
After the model is constructed, water-table contour maps at different points in time will be used to determine if the performance of the model approaches that of the hydrologic system. When its performance is
verified, the initial model will be capable of predicting long-term (2 to 3 years) effects of water management. When the model has been thoroughly tested, it will be refined as necessary for more detailed short-term predictions.
...46•••,..•••••••••,•••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••
••
The objectives of the analog model study are:
1. Identify deficiencies in hydrologic field information.
2. Quantitative evaluation of the effect of ground-water pumpage on seepage to and from the Arkansas River.
3. Determine the amount of water that is consumed nonbeneficially by evapotranspiration where the water table is shallow.
4. Evaluation of the efficiency of the surface-water distribution system, including surface storage and the practice of winter irrigation.
5. Define areas in the Arkansas Valley where additional ground-water pumpage would be advantageous, including salvage of ground ground-water now consumed nonbeneficially.
Other possible uses of the analog model are:
1. Study of the effect of increased pumpage of ground water on return flow to the river, on evapotranspiration, and on aquifer storage.
2. Aid in the selection of sites where large-capacity wells may be developed for use in satisfying surface-water rights.
3. Evaluation of the most efficient spacing of irrigation wells in 'different areas.
4. Outline areas where phreatophytic growth can be controlled by lowering the water table by wells, determination of the number and spacing of salvage wells that would be required, and evaluation of the effect of these wells on seepage to and from the river.
5. Measure the effects. of the importatfon of additional surface water to the Arkansas Valley.
6. Aid in the formulation of effective management criteria for the. control and maintenance of water quality .
7. Identify areas where additional quantities of ground water might be stored underground.
8. Provide a means of predicting water availability in different areas of the Arkansas Valley under varying conditions of surface-water delivery and ground-surface-water pumpage.
Basic assumptions concerning the aquifer in the Arkansas Valley.
1. alluvium not hydraulically connected to bedrock (may be changed in some reaches)
2. alluvium has finite boundaries except where indicated
3. alluvium hydraulically connected with river (hydraulic connection may not be complete when water table is below river bed)
4. water in alluvium under water-table conditions
5. recharge is from applied irrigation water, precipitation, canal seepage, tributary underflow, and sometimes from the river
6. discharge is by ground-water return flow, ground-water pumpage, evapotranspiration, and ground-water underf low into Kansas
7. water can be salvaged from evapotranspiration by lowering water table
8. evapotranspiration losses are small where depth to water greater than 10 feet
9. soil moisture is constant from year to year
10. change in transmissibility caused by changes in saturated thick-ness and permeability can be averaged or modeled (lower part of aquifer is coarser and more. permeable)
11. storage coefficient varies with depth but can be averaged • (aquifer grades from coarse on bottom to fine at top)
_-12. changes in head cannot be predicted near pumped wells because transmissibility decreases due to pumping
Information needed to build the analog model.
1. map showing areal distribution of alluvium, rivers, canals (boundaries)
2. map showing transmissibility of alluvium 3. map showing storage coefficient of alluvium 4. map showing irrigated areas
5. .map showing areas of ground-water pumpage (wells or groups of wells)
6. map showing amount of evapotranspiration losses, phreatophyte areas and non-phreatophyte areas
7. table of discharge by well and period (distribution in time and space)
8. water-level maps for different times following known events (implies knowledge of pumpage, diversions, and stream flow)
9. amount of change in hydraulic connection of river with change in head and water level
Data Requirements and Preliminary Results
of an Analog-Model Evaluation—
Arkansas River Valley in Eastern Colorado
by John E. Mooreb and Leonard A. Woodb
Abstract
The intensively irrigated Arkansas River Valley in Colorado is underlain by a valley-fill aquifer resting in a U-shaped trough cut in relatively impermeable Cretaceous rocks. Ground water is pumped to supplement surface water; in the last 10 years pumping has more than doubled. Ground water is closely related to the Arkansas River; percolation from irrigation recharges the aquifer, which discharges into the river. Pumping has resulted in a reduction in streamflow because it intercepts water that ordinarily would have reached the river. The 1,500 irrigation wells in the Arkansas Valley withdrew 230,000 acre-feet of water in 1964.
An analog model is being used to evaluate the relation of ground water to surface water and to predict effects of changes in water management. The model, simulating a 150-mile reach of the Arkansas Valley (Pueblo to the State line), has a resistor spacing of 8 per modeled mile. The framework for the model was a transmissibility map; trans-missibility ranges from less than 50,000 to 700,000 gallons per day per foot. Specific yield averages about 0.2. Hydro-logic boundaries, such as the Arkansas River, and the bedrock valley-fill contact were simulated. Applied water, precipitation, evapotranspiration, and ground-water pumping were the independent variables programed. The model .is being verified by compTring predicted changes in water level and river discharge with observed changes.
Introduction
The Water Resources Division of the U. S. Geo-logical Survey is making a study of the water resources of the Arkansas Valley, in cooperation with the Colo-rado Water Conservation Board and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
The reach being studied extends from Pueblo to the Kansas line, 150 miles (Figure 1). The patterned area on Figure 1 outlines the approximate extent of the valley-fill aquifer. The aquifer— consisting of sand, gravel, claY, and silt—ranges from 1 to 14 miles in width and averages
3
miles. The river is hydraulically connected with the aquifer, and ground water and surface water constitute a common supply. The usable ground water in storage is about 1 million acre-feet.The irrigation economy of the Arkansas Valley was originally developed with surface water, but storage facilities are small and streamflow is irregular.
aPublication authorized by the Director, U. S. Geo-logical Survey. Presented at GeoGeo-logical Society of America Annual Meeting, Kansas City, Missouri, November 6, 1965.
b Geologists, U. S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. Discussion open until March 1, 1967.
j I rij ,Colorado ! s--1 Springs LINCOL.N I EL PASO Canon I City a CHEYENNE u) —I— . i• KIOWA I I Pueblo CROWLEY • :‹ PUEBL Aquifer boundary La Junta! -,../...• . : OTERO 1 / %...] HUERFANO , L.-.--.-1..-.7-.-.-1-.-.----,‹ I I ! I 1 .,,,--•••-"; LAS ANIMAS )
r
r
i BACA I I 1 iNEW MEXICO .—OKLA.I
10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES
Fig. 1. Extent of valley-fill aquifer of Arkansas Valley in southeastern Colorado.
Lamar
R•
P OWER
The amount of surface water available depends pri-marily on snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains, as the mean annual precipitation east of Pueblo is only about 12 inches. Irrigation water, therefore, is most plentiful from spring until early summer. The surface-water supply in middle and late summer, when crops are maturing and consumptive use is greatest, is often inadequate or lacking. The use of the ground-water reservoir alleviates this inadequacy, and many large-capacity wells have been installed in the Arkansas Valley to supplement the surface-water supply. About 1,500 large-capacity irrigation wells were pumped in the Arkansas Valley in 1964. Most of the wells have been drilled since World War II, and their number has more than doubled in the past 10 years. Withdrawal of ground water increased from 90,000 acre-feet in 1954 to 230,000 acre-feet in 1964.
Wells intercept some of the ground water moving toward the river as return flow. In many reaches of the stream, pumping of ground water reverses the slope of the water table, and water moves from the river toward the wells. Some reaches of the river that formerly were gaining are now losing. These losses decrease the amount of water in the river available for diversion. The unregulated use of ground water benefits those who have wells but works a hardship on those who have only surface-water rights. To minimize this ad-verse effect and to achieve the maximum use of the available water supply, ground water and surface water must be developed and managed as a unit.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the operation of the hydrologic system quantitatively so that effects of possible changes in water management can be predicted. To this end, an analog model of the valley was constructed. Because of the many un-knowns, the large mass of data, and complex hydro-logic interrelations, evaluations could not be made
without such a model.
A 14-mile reach of the valley was selected as an example to illustrate the techniques used to build and evaluate the model.
Data Collection and Evaluation
The study was divided into two basic phases: (1) the definition of the physical limits and .character of the ground-water reservoir; and (2).che relations of ground water, surface water, and climate.
EXPLANATION Geologic contact approximately located K n K n ---• ---• ---• ---•---•---• •• c'e foe ..• K n r•--1 I — I K g • K LeK JUNTA-' „II, If • \ 0 1 2 3 4 MILES .. 11 K n
Fig. 2. Geologic map of a 14-mile reach of the Arkansas Valley. Geologic units (youngest to oldest) are: Qv, valley fill of Quaternary age; Kn, Niobrara Shale; Kc, Carlile Shale; Kg, Greenhorn Limestone, all of Cretaceous age.
On the geologic map (Figure 2) are shown the valley fill and bedrock. The valley fill, which is an aquifer, consists of gravel, sand, silt, and clay of Pleistocene to Recent age. The aquifer in this 14-mile reach averages 2 miles in width and rests in a U-shaped trough cut in bedrock. The bedrock, which acts as a barrier to ground-water movement, consists of shale and limestone of the Niobrara Shale, Carlile Shale, and Greenhorn Limestone, all of Late Creta-ceous age. The geology of the Arkansas Valley is discussed more completely in reports by Voegeli and Hershey (1965) and Weist (1965).
The relation of valley fill to bedKock is shown on an idealized north-south section of the valley (Figure 3). The permeability of the valley fill is many times that of the bedrock, and, therefore, the bedrock acts as a barrier to the movement of water. Wells tapping the valley-fill aquifer yield as much as 3,000 gpm (gallons per minute); average yield is about 600 gpm.
4 4-PRECIPITATION 4 4 4 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, CROPS SIDE INFLOW Z,T EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, PHREATOPHYTES t EVAPORATION
c,
ct
FLOW TOWARDSTREAM... RETURN FLOW TO STREAM
VALLEY FILL BEDROCK
Fig. 3. Idealized north-south section of the Arkansas Val-ley, Showing recharge, movement, and discharge of ground water.
Well data were collected to define the physical character of the aquifer. Where there were no wells or where data were lacking, test holes were augered. Observation wells were installed where additional water-table control was needed. Water-table, bedrock-contour, saturated-thickness, and depth-to-water maps were constructed from field data. In addition, pumping tests were made to determine transmissibility and specific yield.
In the second phase of the study, data on irriga-tion water, precipitairriga-tion, evapotranspirairriga-tion, and river gain and loss were collected. The river is hydraulical-ly connected in varying degrees to the aquifer (Moore and Jenkins, 1966) and, during much of the year, drainage from the aquifer sustains the flow of the river (Figure 3).
The aquifer is recharged in large part by canal leakage and by downward percolation of surface water applied to crops (Figure 3). About 70 percent of divert-ed surface water is consumdivert-ed (Moulder and others, 1963; Moulder and Jenkins, 1964). Precipitation also provides some recharge. Ground water that is not pumped, evaporated, or transpired seeps to the river. Evapotranspiration on the flood plain, where the water table is less than 10 feet from the surface, may be as much as 3 feet of water per year.
Eight water-level measurements of about 1,000 wells have been made since 1963, and water-level change maps have been constructed. An example of water-level changes between May and October 1964 is shown on Figure 4. Changes are shown by patterns. Declines were as great as 6 feet, and rises were less than 1 foot. Average decline was about 2 feet. The black dots on the map indicate irrigation or municipal wells. Areas of greatest decline correspond to areas of greatest withdrawal of ground water. The net loss from ground-water storage in the reach, as indicated by the change map, was about 5,000 'acre-feet. About 21,000 acre-feet of ground water was pumped during
EXPLANATION Water-level change, in feet
0 to +1 LA:444 toirk.W. .00.• 0 to -2 -2 to -4 -4 to -6 Aquifer boundary • Irrigation or municipal well L.:1-9, • `I LA JUNTA 1 Li 0 1 2 3 4 N1ILES efr, I /1. I i • /. ziz 00 CAU wIZ 1-11,tal 01
Fig. 4. Water-level change map (May to Octo6er 1964) of a 14-mile reach of the Arkansas Valley, as determined from field measurements. ,
this period. The difference (16,000 acre-feet) was de-rived ,from recharge, fro'm applied water, and from the river. About 5,000 acre feet of the pumpage was sup-plied from the river. The amount of river contribution was determined by comparing this change Map with the May to August change. map. There was no decline in ground-water storage from August to October. The channel-loss. and channel-gain measurements indicate that during this period the river was probably losing water in an amount equal to the discharge of the wells.
EXPLANATION Pftwo Gaining reach
Losing reach Aquifer boundary tc Measurement site
;qr.)
7 Cubic feet per second
NET LOSS • a9C ... .-/-LA JUNTA 2 3 4 MILES //I -1 II >-j>-1—.1— zlz min 0.0 01c) CC.
Fig. 5. Channel-gain and channel-loss measurements, May 15, 1964.
Results of two channel-gain and channel-loss studies are shown on Figures 5 and 6. On these maps gain is shown in black, and loss is shown by a stip-pled pattern. Points where measurements were made are shown by black lines. Inflow of surface water and diversions have been eliminated from the calculations, and only ground-water inflow to the river or loss from
the river is represented. In May, before much ground-water pumping, the river between the Fort Lyon Diversion Dam (near La Junta) and a point near the county line had a net loss of 7 cfs (cubic feet per second) (Figure 5). In July, the period of greatest pumping, the river between the same points had a net loss of 37 cfs (Figure 6). The areas of greatest loss
EXPLANATION Par, Gaining reach
Losing reach Aquifer boundary Measurement site / .
1
/ r",,i N.,...„ I r -. - 1 1-14.%...--37 Cubic -feet pei•pecond
NET LOSS . ; • / i' LA JUNTA LC- ' 2 3 4 MILES N •
• Fig. 6. Channel-gain and channel-loss measurements, July 17, 1964.
correspond closely to areas of greatest decline of water level and to areas of greatest withdrawal of ground water (Figure 4).
Construction of Analog Model
The basic framework on which the model was built —the transmissibility and boundaries of the hydrologic system (the Arkansas River, and the bed-rock and valley-fill contact)—is shown on Figure 7 for the 14-mile reach. The. transmissibility is estimated from pumping tests, well logs, saturated-thickness map, and water-table contour maps. In this part of the valley, transmissibility ranges from less than 50,000 to about 200,000 gallons per day per foot. The varia-tion is caused by differences in saturated thickness or in permeability. The specific yield was determined from pumping tests and neutron-moisture data to be about 0.2.
The model, simulating the 150-mile reach of the Arkansas Valley (Pueblo, Colorado, to the Kansas line), is built on four connected panels and is 48 feet long and 61/2 feet high. The model was constructed on a scale of 4 inches equal 1 mile, with a resistor at ',4-inch intervals between junctions. The model
con-tains about 100,000 resistors and 10,000 capacitors.
Calibration of Model
Independent variables of the hydrologic system such as recharge from applied water, precipitation, and evapotranspiration were programed in stages to determine the effect of each on the hydrologic system.
EXPLANATION
Transmissibility, in gallons per day per foot
r---1
Less than 50,000 V M. TO 50,000 to 100,000 100,000 to150,000 150,000 to 200,000 --"""•• Aquifer boundary 2 3 4 MILESFig. 7. Transmissibility map of a 14-mile reach of the Arkansas Valley.
For example, the. first analysis of the model was made by simulating well pumping and observing water-level changes with no river recharge, precipitation, applied water, or evapotranspiration in the system. The maximum water-level decline was about 10 feet and the average decline in the 14-mile reach was 5 feet.
EXPLANATION Water-level change, in feet
ri
0
to -4 MI -4 to -8> -8
---Aquifer boundary Irrigation or Municipal well
• .00,0 LA JUNTA 0 1 2 3 . 4 MILES
•
1 zlz MID 0,0 cc. LuIZ .wFig. 8. Water-level change map (May to October 1964) as determined from analog model.
The next analysis of the model was made with the river added. The result of this analysis is shown on Figure 8. By adding the river the water-level changes were reduced, as would be expected, as the river and aquifer are hydraulically connected. The maximum water-level decline was about 8 feet and the average decline was 4 feet. The two analyses indicate that 26 acre-feet of water per day or an average of 13 cfs was withdrawn from the river or was intercepted
return flow. This depletion of the river corresponds to the observed loss, which ranged from 7 to 37 cfs (Figures 5 and 6). The model analyses also indicate that 29 percent of the pumped water came from the river, or about 5,000 acre-feet from May to October. The river depletion predicted by the model is close to the depletion estimated by comparing field change maps and channel-gain and channel-loss measure-ments, as discussed earlier in this paper.
In general the analog analysis (Figure 8) com-pares closely with the field change map (Figure 4). The shape of the contours is similar to those con-structed from field measurements, but the amount of change is greater. Much of the discrepancy between the maps can be explained by the fact that recharge from precipitation and applied surface water was not programed.
Use of Model
The analog model is now being tested at the Geo-logical Survey's computer laboratory in Phoenix. The proper weighting of input factors to the model (such as recharge and evapotranspiration) will be determined by trial comparisons with observed aquifer response. The model will then be used to predict effects of changes in water management. Some evaluations that will be made by the model are as follows:
1. Quantitative evaluation of the effect of ground-water pumpage on seepage to and from the river.
2. Outline areas where ground-water supplies could be developed to satisfy senior water rights downstream from junior appropriators.
3. Provide a means of predicting water availabili-ty in different areas under different conditions of precipitation, surface-water delivery, and ground-water pumpage.
4. Define areas where additional ground-water withdrawal would be beneficial, such as salvage of ground water that is now being evaporated or trans-pired nonbeneficially.
References
Moore, J. E., and C. T. Jenkins. 1966. An evaluation of the effect of ground-water pumpage on the infiltration rate of a semipervious streambed. Am. Geophys. Union, Water Resources Research (in press).
Moulder, E. A., C. T. Jenkins, J. E. Moore, and D. L. Coffin. 1963. Effects of water management on a reach of the Arkansas Valley, La Junta to Las Animas, Colorado. Colorado Water Conserv. Board, Ground-Water Ser. Cir. 10. 20 pp.
Moulder, E. A., and C. T. Jenkins. 1964. Methods for con-trolling the ground-water regime—exploitation and *conservation. Internat. Assoc. Sci. Hydrology Pub. No.
64. pp. 329-341.
Voegeli, P. T., Sr., and L. A. Hershey. 1965. Geology and ground-water resources of Prowers County, Colorado. U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1772. 101 pp. Weist, W. G., Jr. 1965. Geology and occurrence of ground
water in Otero County and the southern part of Crowley County, Colorado. U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1799. 90 pp.
DRAFT
POLICY ON USE OF ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN
WATER-MANAGEMENT MODEL
In as much as the U.S. Geological Survey developed the
Arkansas River Basin Water-Management Model for the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District through a
joint-funding agreement, the district establishes the
following policy on future use of the model.
(1) All requests for model usage will be directed in
writing to the board of the Southeastern Colorado
Water Conservancy District.
(2) The board will either approve or disapprove each
request.
Approved requests will be forwarded to the.. U.S.
Geological Survey and the district's engineering
consultants for the necessary computer runs to be
completed. Most runs will be done by the Survey with
the assistance of the engineering consultants. Results
of runs will be disseminated by the engineering
consultants.
(4) Selected analyses will be done entirely by the Survey,
reviewed, and published.
It is the Intent 6 this policy to. assure technical
integrity of the model and all analyses made using the
model, while at the same time minimizing for time-consuming
review and approval of results by the Survey.
United States Department of the Interior
GEOLOGICAL SURVEYWater Resources Division
P. 0. Box 1524
Pueblo, Colorado 81002-1524
May 13, 1986 •
Mr. Charles L. (Tommy) Thomson
Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District
P. 0. Box 440
Pueblo, Colorado 81002
Dear Tommy,
Attached is a preliminary draft copy of the
report titled,
"Calibration and use of an interactive-accounting
model to
simulate the flow, salinity, and water-supply
operations of the
Arkansas River basin, Colorado," by Alan W. Burns.
A magnetic
tape copy of the computer code for the model
has previously been
provided. We would appreciate the district's
review of the
report and model at your convenience; please
provide your
comments directly to me either by phone or by
letter. Both the
report and model code are, of course, subject
to revision as
part of our technical review process, and, therefore,
should not
be distributed or released at this time.
Although a summary journal article may be prepared
at a future
time, this report along with the model code, represent
the final
product of our cooperative study on development
of the Arkansas
River Management model. We now look forward to utilization
of
this powerful tool to meet the needs of the district;
that
aspect is, of course, covered in part by our ongoing
cooperative
program.
I want to take this opportunity to extend my personal
thanks and
the gratitude of the Water Resources Division to you
and the
board members. The accomplishment of the extensive
investigation is a credit to the district's original
foresight
and subsequent approval of the project proposal, its
support and
input during the course of the study, and its patience
in "
awaiting completion of the model code and final reports.
We
sincerely hope the future role of the model in management
of
this basin's water resources will bring the district a
sense of
Sincerely,
Russell K. Livingston
Subdistrict Chief
-Attachment
\
United States Department of the In
\t'
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water Resources Division
Pueblo, Colorado 81002-1524
P. 0. Box 1524
SEP sO
01;i,
AO:
-115CRI1 COLORADO OM
September 23, 1986
Mr. Charles L. (Tommy) Thomson
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy
District
P. 0. Box 440
-Pueblo, Colorado 81002
Dear Tommy,
During June of this year, you requested that the U.S. Geological
Survey make a simulation using the Arkansas Basin Management
Model as part of our cooperative program with the district. You
were interested in an estimate of water availability for the
1986 irrigation season, based on snowpack data available at that
time. Alan Burns and Doug Cain subsequently made a model
analysis to provide such an estimate, and Doug gave a brief oral
report at the June 19 meeting of the Board of Directors. The
intent of this letter is to give a brief written summary of the
methodology and important results of that analysis. Complete
computer printouts of all model input and output are also
available, if needed.
Because your request was for an estimate of total surface-water
supply and did not require a breakdown by individual water
users, the simulation was made using version 2 of the model.
Version 2 uses regression relations to generate mainstem
streamflow from snowpack, precipitation, temperature and
tributary inflows. The water rights structure is not explicitly
included in version 2, however, the total water diversion in
each reach is accounted for through other regression relations
that are based on inflow to the reach. Additional descriptions
of version 2 of the model are contained in the two unpublished
reports by Alan Burns ("Model documentation" and "Model
Calibration"), drafts of which were given to you earlier this
year for review.
The model simulation results were indicative of the below
average snowpack conditions last year. Snowpack at the
Independence Pass snow course on April 1 is the primary variable
used to estimate upper-basin streamflow in version 2 of the
model. This information for April 1, 1986 was obtained from the
Soil Conservation Service and used as input to the model;
The April 1, 1986 snowpack was 16.9 inches of water content
compared to the 1937-1984 average of 17.84 inches. The
simulation indicated an expected May-through-September
streamflow for the Arkansas River at Pueblo of 337,000
acre-feet, which is 94 percent of the 1901-1975 average of
360,000 acre-feet at this location. Similar expected
percentages of long-term streamflow were indicated by the model
at all stations upstream from Pueblo.
If you have additional questions about the simulation or require
additional results, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
y 1,0
Russell K. Livingston
Subdistrict Chief
United States Department of the In
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water Resources Division
P. 0. Box 1524
Pueblo, Colorado 81002-1524
Roger Weidelmann
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
P. O. Box 449
Loveland, CO 80539
Dear Roger,
CE1VE
JUL ii
SlifiEVERN COLORADO WATER
CORSERVANCe DISTRICT
July 6, 1988
Enclosed please find the output from the latest Arkansas River
Basin Management model runs. We ran the model under three
different scenarios for the period 1940-1965. All three runs
assumed that the Fryingpan-Arkansas project was not yet in
existence, and that ground water was available. Scenario 1
assumed that the canals (except for the Otero Canal) made winter
diversions. Under scenario 2, the canals did not make winter
diversions, but this water was available for reservoir storage.
In scenario 3, the canals did not make winter diversions and this
water was removed from the system so that it was not available
for future use.
The basic information. generated by the model runs is given in
Exhibits 1 through 6. Exhibits 1 through 3 give monthly
statistical summaries for the ten canals and for selected
reservoirs. Exhibits 4 through 6 give the monthly water needs,
crop consumptive uses, and supplemental crop requirements for the
ten canals for the period 1940-1965.
Exhibit 7 gives a water budget summary for each of the three
scenarios. Results for Scenario 2 show that the direct
diversions, ground water pumpages, and canal leakages decrease
when winter diversions are curtailed. The reservoir releases
increase due to the increase in storage diversions. However, the
supplemental crop requirement increases only slightly. Scenario
3 was a theoretical attempt to model the system without winter
diversions and without the additional water storage resulting
from a curtailment of winter diversions. The reservoir releases
are shown to be roughly the same in scenarios 1 and 3. The
direct diversions increased in scenario 3 over those in scenario
2 because the demand function in scenario 3 called for additional
water diversions in April and October for purposes such as
A preliminary analysis was also made on the temporal and spatial
distribution of the supplemental crop requirements. The results
were based on data from scenario 2, and are shown in exhibits 8
through 10. Exhibit 8 shows the average monthly supplemental
crop requirement by canal. It also shows the percentage of an
individual canal's supplemental crop requirement that occurs in a
specific month. Three patterns tend to emerge. First, the
Oxford-Farmers, Rocky Ford and Las Animas Consolidated canals
have supplemental crop requirements only in the early and late
portions of the growing season. Second, the Colorado and Otero
canals have supplemental crop requirements which are more evenly
distributed throughout the growing season. Third, the remaining
canals have irregular supplemental crop-requirement patterns.
Exhibit 9 shows the total supplemental crop requirements for
specific years. The figures are ranked from highest to lowest
total supplemental crop requirement. It shows that with the
exception of the Otero Canal, the supplemental crop requirement
for a given canal decreases as the total supplemental crop
requirement decreases. During the wettest years several canals,
including Bessemer, Highline, Catlin, Rocky Ford, Fort Lyon, and
Las Animas Consolidated, cease to have any supplemental crop
requirements. On the other hand, the supplemental crop
requirements for the Otero Canal remains fairly constant.
Exhibit 10 shows the percentage of a given year's total
supplemental crop requirement that is associated with a specific
canal. Therefore, this summary indicates the relative importance
of each canal regarding the total supplemental crop requirement
for a given year. The Colorado Canal accounts for between 29 and
63 percent of the total supplemental water demand. The Fort Lyon
canal is a major demand source during dry periods, but not during
wet periods. The Otero Canal has relatively constant
supplemental crop requirements, The Bessemer and Holbrook canals
have some supplemental crop requirements, especially during the
dry periods. However, the supplemental crop requirements of the
remaining five canals are quite minor regardless of hydrologic
conditions.
It should be a relatively simple process to calculate the values
of supplemental irrigation requirement. As soon as you have
developed your estimates for canal, lateral, and farm losses,
please let us know and we'll incorporate them into our software
in order to make the necessary calculations. If you have any
further questions don't hesitate to contact myself or Alan Burns.
10 Enclosures
Copy to:
Alan Burns
Tommy Thompson
District Chief
Jack Garner
For the Subdistrict Chief
Yours Truly,
Gregg Nelson
DAVID W. ROBBINS ROBERT F. HILL DENNIS M. MONTOOMERY KAREN A. TOMB BOBBEE J. MUSORAVE RONALD L. WILCOX J. KEMPER WILL OF COUNSEL
Howard K. Holme, Esq.
Fairfield & Woods
950 - 17th St., #1600
Denver, CO 80202
Dear Howard:
HILL
8cROBBINS
' ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 BLAKE STREET BUILDINO
1441 E1011TEENTH STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80202
February 17, 1986
TELEPHONE 003 290-8100 TELECOPIER 303 296-2388F-E,B 1
8 1986
u
FAIRFIELD AND
WOODS
I want to thank you for sending
copies of memos and
correspondence from Alan Burns relating to the inquiries by
members of S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., concerning
the Arkansas River Basin Model. It helps us enormously to •
have some idea of what they are up to.
I have not contacted Tommy Thomson to set up a meeting
to review the history of the winter storage program because
Kansas does not seem to be concerned about the operation of
the winter storage program, at least at this time. In its
complaint, for example, the only reference to the operation
of Pueblo Reservoir was the allegation that Colorado had
unilaterally rejected the Arkansas River Compact
Adminis-tration's Resolution of July 24, 1951. From my discussions
with Richard Simms, this seems to be a matter of principle
with Kansas, rather than any real concern over the present
operation of the winter storage program. Therefore, until
there is some further indication that Kansas is concerned
with the present operation of the winter storage program, I
intend to put this on the back burner and concentrate on
more immediate concerns. If David or I obtain any
infor-mation which would cause us to change our opinion about
this, I will let you know.
Very truly yours,
Dennis M. Montgomery
DMM:ncr
FRANK MILENSKI
ROUTE I
LA JUNTA. COLORADO 81050
