Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I' <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />O(}Jgn <br /> <br />The USBR Definite Plan Report operation studies for Pot Hook Reservoir and <br /> <br />Pot Hook Canal used a lesser annual irrigation demand of 35,800 acre-feet. This demand <br /> <br />was based upon consumptive use and varied from month to month as follows: <br /> <br />USBR Pot Hook Canal Demands, c.f.s. <br /> <br />May June Julv August September <br />24 148 205 161 48 <br /> <br />Since there is not enough water to meet the decreed amount each month, it was <br /> <br /> <br />decided that the Pot Hook Canal diversion demand defined in the USBR Definite Plan <br /> <br /> <br />Report should be used in this study. It should also be noted that the USBR operation <br /> <br /> <br />study did not include demands by Two Bar Canal, Boone Lateral, Deer Lodge Lateral and <br /> <br /> <br />instream flow requirements. For Scenario No. I, these demands were included and were <br /> <br />modeled as defined in Section 3.0 of this report. Scenario No. lA modeled the system <br /> <br />without these rights calling on reservoir storage. Scenario No. IB modeled the system <br /> <br />without these rights calling on reservoir storage but with a larger reservoir at Pot Hook <br /> <br />(100,000 AF total storage). <br />Even with the lower USBR demands, Scenario No. 1 runs showed irrigation <br /> <br />shortages were experienced every year and the active storage in Pot Hook Reservoir was <br /> <br />depleted every year. The USBR operation study showed shortages experienced only 5 out <br /> <br />of the 17 years in their study period (1952-68). The reasons for this descrepancy are not <br /> <br />apparent and were not pursued. <br /> <br />37 <br />