16 



BULLETIN 1026, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



The court, in arriving at the decree of 1882, had little definite in- 

 formation regarding the water requirements of various soils and 

 crops to guide it, nor were there available any accurate measurements 

 of the capacities of the canals, whose rights were being adjudicated : 

 and it was human for the claimants to give themselves the benefit 

 of the doubt. The result was that many of the canals were given 

 decrees for appropriations in excess of their capacities or of their 

 requirements for years to come. Enlargement and extension of the 

 area irrigated by most of these canals have brought them to the 

 point where their capacities, amounts diverted, and amounts used 

 are well balanced. In the case of others no enlargement has taken 

 place, but part of the excess appropriation has been transferred to 

 other canals. Still others retain their excessive rights, but have in- 

 sufficient capacity to carry them or else serve such a small acreage 

 that only a part of the appropriation can be used properly. 



In Table 5 a comjDarison is made between the total rights of each 

 canal and its capacity, as shown by its maximum discharge during 

 1916 and 1917. The maximum discharges noted, which covered 

 periods of at least two hours, are believed to represent w^ith fair ac- 

 curacy the maximum capacities of the canals. The fact that records 

 were being taken by disinterested agencies seemed to appeal to some 

 canal men as affording an opportunity of establishing a record of 

 the capacity of their canals. In 1917 a number were crowded to their 

 limit for short or long periods when the water might more profitably 

 have been allowed to pass on down the river. In 1916 conditions 

 were different and maximum discharges were carried that year be- 

 cause the water was actually needed. If the Poudre Valley Canal be 

 omitted, which is warranted by the fact that its capacity is primarily 

 for carrying water for storage, the canals show an average capacity 

 nearly 10 per cent in excess of their rights. 



Table 5. — Comparison between icater rights and capacities of canals of the Cache 



la Poudre Valley. 







Max- 





1 





Max- 







Total 



nnnni 





1 



Total 



imnm 







rights 



dis- 



Ratio 





rights 



dis- 



Ratio 





(sec- 



charge 



(per 





(sec- 



charge 



(per 





ond- 



(sec- 



cent.) 





ond- 



(sec- 



cent.) 





feet). 



ond- 

 feet). 





1 



feet). 



ond- 

 feet). 





North Poudre Canal 



401 



201 



50 



' Larimer and Weld Canal. 



720 



754 



105 



Poudre Valley Canal 



Pleasant Valley and Lake 



26 



297 



1 142 



' Josh Ames Ditch 



18 



1 20 



111 











158 



185 



117 



138 

 504 



157 

 597 



114 

 118 



' Cov Ditch 



32 

 22 



1 18 

 1 21 



56 



La'-imer County Canal . . . 



Chaffee Ditch 



95 



51 



52 



102 



Boxelder Ditch 



53 

 585 



121 



558 



228 



Little Cache la Poudre 



Greeley Canal No. 2 



95 



Ditch 



82 

 12 



137 



22 



167 

 183 



Whitney Ditch 



61 

 42 



61 

 123 



100 



Taylor and Gill Ditch 



B. H. Eaton Ditch 



55 



Larimer County Canal 

 No. 2 









' Jones Ditch 



16 



129 



181 



179 

 171 



186 

 112 



104 

 65 



Greeley Canal No. 3 



i Boyd and Freeman Ditch 



173 



99 



102 

 124 



59 



New Mercer Canal 



24 



Arthur Ditch 



109 



51 



47 



Ogilvv Ditch 



58 



122 



210 









1 These figures are based on daily gage readings. The remainder are from continuous automatic records 

 of gage heights. 



