Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,'J: <br /> <br />I' <br />rJ <br />::~l <br />1,)1 <br />",'- <br /> <br /> <br />(1 <br />..<~ <br />',~ <br />[1 <br /> <br />,3 <br /> <br />;. ".~ <br /> <br />r' <br />t>~ <br />t<i <br />~:.;~ <br />~:,:,; <br />r1 <br /> <br />~-'\'~ <br /> <br />l! <br /> <br />'I <br /> <br />.-', <br />,; : <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />~;>~ <br />.,.} <br /> <br />r <br />r <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />o <br />a <br />("-.... <br />0' <br />en <br />00 <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Expanded operatio~,of ,E:xistincrSvstems <br />. CBT/Windy Gap project (Adam:;; Tunnel) <br />. Fryingpan-Arkansa:;;'Project (Boustea,d Tunnel) <br />. FraSer River Diversion System '(Moffet Tunnel) <br />. Blue River Diversion Project (Roberts Tunnel) <br />. HomestakePr<;>j ect {Homes take Tunnel) <br /> <br />2 . New Facilities"notPresently in E:xistence <br />. Williatn$ Fork Collection System Extension (Gumlick <br />Tunnel) <br />. Straight Creek Dive'rsion(Roberts Tunnel) <br /> <br />Table 4.1 contains a, comparison,' of the aver<J,ge', levels of annual <br />diversions for the major transmountain div,e:tsion sYstems as <br />historically rec;:orded and as, operated in the Existing LeWel Use <br />Scenario with increased demands by those systems listed above. <br /> <br />The in-basin demands for the presehtlevel of, irrigation; municipal <br />and industrial use in the basin were estimated based on evaluation <br />of the historic;: diversion records; ,for ditches and structures having <br />entitlements of 5.0 cfs and larger. Recorded diver:;;ions for the <br />entire 33-year study periOd were first compared with the associated <br />decreed water rights. Maj ordi:;;crepancies between the, lis,tings were <br />resolved. Where the diversion records were incomplete, the <br />beginning years of diversion, Were assumed on the basis of the <br />decreed dates of appropriation" for the rights. Incomplete <br />diversion records, were extended and/or filled in by comp<J,rison with <br />the available portions o,f ,the diversion record and/or by <br />correlation with either diversions. Fina.lly, the aggregate of the <br />adjusted diversion records, for each basin were compared with the <br />consumptive use estimates prepared by the USBR to resolve <br />inconsistencies. <br /> <br />4-2 ' <br />