Laserfiche WebLink
<br />J <br />.: <br />, <br /> <br />0740 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Under the change in water use plan, evaporation from the total pool <br /> <br />in John Martin Reservoir during the last year of simulation is 7,600 <br /> <br />6 3 <br />acre-feet (9.4xlO m). This evaporation is proportional between the <br /> <br />permanent pool and nonpermanent pool on the basis of their respective <br /> <br />volumes, with the permanent pool being assigned 4,300 acre-feet (5.3xl06 <br /> <br />m3) of evaporation and the nonpermanent pool being assigned less than <br /> <br />6 3 <br />3,300 acre-feet (4.lxlO m). Had the permanent pool not existed, the <br /> <br />evaporation from the nonpermanent pool would have been about 3,650 acre- <br /> <br />6 3 <br />feet (4.5xIO m). This represents a net reduction of evaporation charge <br /> <br />--J <br /> <br />5 3 <br />to the nonpermanent pool of 350 acre-feet (4.3xlO m). This reduction <br /> <br />is divided bet~een Colorado and Kansas according to the compact, <br /> <br />Evaporation is negligible during the winter and only the permanent pool <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />exists during the Summer of most years, but during the spring alld fall <br /> <br />when both the permanent and nonpermanent pools occupy the reservoir, the <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />nonpermanent pool is generally charged for less evaporation than it would <br /> <br />have been had the permanent pool not existed. This method of proportioning <br /> <br />evaporation from the reservoir generally gives several hundred acre-feet <br /> <br />per year extra water to otner users in tne basin at tne expense of the <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />permanent pool. <br /> <br />.'"" <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />, , <br />