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 comparison 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 with 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 water rights and capacities of canals of the Cache 
la Poudre Valley. 
Max- 
Max- 
Total 
imum 
Total 
imum 
rights 
dis- 
Ratio 
1 
rights 
dis- 
Ratio 
(sec- 
charge 
(per 
(sec- 
charge 
(per 
ond- 
(sec- 
cent.) 
I 
ond- 
(sec- 
cent.') 
feet). 
ond- 
feet). 
feet). 
ond- 
feet). 
North Poudre Canal 
401 
201 
50 
Larimer and Weld Canal . 
720 
754 
105 
Poudre Valley Canal 
26 
297 
1,142 
: Josh Ames Ditch 
18 
120 
111 
Pleasant Valley and Lake 
158 
185 
117 
138 
157 
114 
Coy Ditch 
32 
1 18 
56 
Lanmer County Canal . . . 
504 
597 
118 
Chaffee Ditch 
22 
i 21 
95 
Jackson Ditch 
51 
52 
102 
Boxelder Ditch 
53 
121 
228 
Little Cache la Poudre 
Greeley Canal No. 2 
585 
558 
95 
Ditch 
82 
137 
167 
Whitney Ditch 
61 
61 
100 
Taylor and Gill Ditch 
12 
22 
183 
B. H. Eaton Ditch 
42 
123 
55 
Larimer County Canal 
Jones Ditch 
16 
129 
181 
No. 2 
179 
186 
104 
Greeley Canal No. 3 
173 
102 
59 
New Mercer Canal 
171 
112 
65 
Boyd and Freeman Ditch 
99 
124 
24 
Arthur Ditch 
109 
51 
47 
Ogilvy Ditch 
58 
122 
210 
i These figures are based on daily gage readings. The remainder are from continuous automatic records 
of gage heights. 
