Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0729 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />The results from each month of simulation are as follows: <br /> <br />1. Surface-water diversions for each canal. <br /> <br />2. Ground-water diversions under each canal. <br /> <br />3. Streamflow at the State line. <br /> <br />4. Change in ground-water storage by reach and side of the <br /> <br />river. <br /> <br />5. Contents of John Martin Reservoir and the amount of water <br /> <br />assigned to the permanent pool. <br /> <br />6. Return flow to the river and change in storage in the <br /> <br />----i <br /> <br />ground-water system for all future months due to operation during all <br /> <br />preceding months and the present month. <br /> <br />Assumptions <br /> <br />.: <br /> <br />The. si~t;l.3.tiar. ',.'25 dOTle t'oJic:e~ once undt2r non:.al opc.rati.cn .::J.~d c~ce <br /> <br />--..l <br /> <br />with the proposed change in use of water. All data and operating procedures <br /> <br />were the same for both simulations except as noted below. The difference <br /> <br />bet>leen the simulations is a measure of the hydrologic effects of the <br /> <br />proposed change in ~ater use. <br /> <br />The Division of Wildlife has a right to 11.2" percent of the water <br /> <br />diverted by the Catlin Canal. Under the change in water use simulation, <br /> <br />11.24 percent of the direct diversion by the canal was assigned to the <br /> <br />Division. llowevcr, because this water was historically applied 35 <br /> <br />irrigation water with resulting return f~ow, only the consumptive use of <br /> <br />this water was allowed to be transferred in this simulation. The <br /> <br />consumptive use was estimated to be 77 percent (Taylor and Luckey, <br />-- -- -- - -_.- .. - <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />1972) . <br /> <br />The remaining 23 percent of the water was returned to thc river <br /> <br />---.. .------- - --- <br /> <br />-,-- -----+ <br /> <br />.~~--~.' -. <br /> <br />to replace the historical return flow. <br /> <br />11 <br />