SEEPAGE OR RETURN WATERS FROM IRRIGATION. 
15 
of the water entering the stream by the small channels, which is 
given in the later measurements. The assumption was made in 
this, as in several subsequent measurements, that this water was all 
seepage water, as, in fact, the investigations of later years have 
seemed to show. 
The second measurement was made in October, 1889, under the 
direction of Mr. E. S. Nettleton, then Supervising Engineer for the 
U. S. Geological Survey, and Mr. J. S. Greene, State Engineer. 
The inflow determined by this measurement was 99 cubic feet 
per second in the distance from the gauging station to the mouth of 
the Poudre. This is a little greater distance than measurement 
No. 1. 
Measurement No. 3, was made in October, 1890, by Mr. L. R. 
Hope and Mr. E. 0. Hawkins, representing J. P. Maxwell, State 
Engineer, and Col. Nettleton, of the U. S. Department of Agricult¬ 
ure. The total amount of inflow is very nearly the same as in the 
second measurement. 
The fourth measurement, made in the latter part of October, 
1891, was made by this Section in co-operation with the State 
Engineer’s measurements of the Platte river, with which the Section 
also co-operated. During the first day Mr. Trimble assisted and 
then joined Mr. Hope at Greeley, helping him take the measure¬ 
ment of October 29th, from Greeley to the mouth of the Poudre, 
and thence going down the Platte, assisting in making these 
measurements. In this and the subsequent measurements which 
have been made by this Section, each measurement has shown some 
features which it has been desirable to avoid, but which it has not 
been possible to do. In order not to interfere with the use of water 
for irrigation, in this and the subsequent measurements no 
attempt was made to regulate the ditches themselves. The time, 
however, was chosen so that the use of water in anv ditch was 
nearly constant during the few days devoted to the gaging, and 
the irregularity, if any, is so small as not to affect the results derived 
from the measurements. There is one measurement, how^ever, to 
which an exception may be made. This is No. 6, of 1892, during 
which time the river was constantly affected because of the trading 
of water between the Larimer & Weld canal and a mill at Fort 
Collins. Each had some claims to the water, but not to the full 
amount, hence it became mutually convenient to the two parties to 
alternate the water, so that the mill used the water during the day 
and the canal took the water at night for storage. This, therefore, 
caused fluctuations in the streams at points below the Larimer & 
Weld headgate, and hence caused some of the discrepancies which 
are evident in this measurement. Thus, on October 6th, at three 
o’clock p. m., the river below Strauss’s bridge had fifty-four second 
feet, while the next morning, at 11 o’clock a. m., it had but 
