95 



entire canal, including Camp Creek lateral, was about one-third of the 

 vohune achnitted. The tests made in ]JH>2 and 1JM)3 wore each tnade 

 by ditl'orcnt parties, and fre([UiMitly ditierent j^aut^ing- stations were 

 selected from those used in 1!>U(). Notwithstandino- this difference in 

 many of the sections into which the canal was divided, the results 

 <)l)tained in the throe years show that conditions have not been mate- 

 rially altered in a four-year period. 



Middle Creek canal consists of a main canal somethinjj;- over i miles 

 long, and two branches known as North and East forks. Four tests 

 made from 1809 to 1S>02 show that under ordinary heads the seepage 

 loss in the main canal averages about 20 per cent of the volume 

 admitted. In the North Fork there is a gain — that is, the waste water 

 which flows into it from adjacent irrigated farms more than counter- 

 balances the losses due to percolation in the channel. This gain of 20 

 to 30 per cent in the North Fork reduces the loss over the entire sys- 

 tem to about 1() per cent of the flow through the head gate. 



In the Cameron or Kughen ditch the total loss, which does not 

 appear to have been reduced by the inflow of seepage, is 28. 7 percent 

 of the volume admitted. As has been stated in connection with other 

 canals, this is not the actual loss Y)y seepage from this canal, but rather 

 the net loss, which is the actual loss diminished b\^ the amount of 

 inflow. The seepage inflow into the Kleinschmidt canal is derived 

 from creek channels and narrow irrigated valleys. 



In 1900, when the tirst seepage measurements were made on the 

 Republican canal, there was a heavy loss in the upper portion of the 

 canal. On Jidy 21, 1900, out of a total of 120.1:9 cubic feet per second 

 admitted through the head gate, 35.35 cubic feet per second was lost 

 by percolation before the canal passed Grantsdale, 3.6 miles below the 

 head. The loss in a distance of about 10 miles below this upper sec- 

 tion was counterbalanced b}^ seepage waters from irrigated areas above 

 the Republican canal. The results for 1902 show that the net loss has 

 been reduced by the interception and admission of percolating waters 

 from the Hedge canal, immediately above the Republican. In 1903 

 onlj^ the upper portion of the canal was tested, but the results show a 

 still further diminution in the net loss by seepage. In 1 mile there 

 is a gain of 2.97 cubic feet per second, showing that sufficient perco- 

 lating water from higher elevations was admitted not only to make up 

 for the loss but to produce a surplus. 



The results of seepage measurements made throughout the entire 

 length of the Hedge canal in 1902 and also in 1903 show that condi- 

 tions are changing. In 1902, 16.08 out of 80.83 cubic feet per second 

 admitted was lost. If earlier measurements had been made they would 

 probably have shown that this loss of 19.9 per cent was not the total 

 loss, because in 1903 it is found that out of nearly 100 cubic feet per 

 33281— No. 172—06 7 



