My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11044
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11044
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:15:49 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:41:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8281
Description
Colorado River Studies and Investigations
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1978
Title
Evaluation of Cloud Seeding in Utah
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />o <br />~ <br />Q') <br /> <br />'. ':} <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />generator locations due to the limited population of the area, therefore, the effects <br /> <br />from those ground generators would be limited. In fact, ground generators were not <br /> <br />installed in Nevada (upwind of the area) until the second year of the project. <br /> <br />Aircraft seeding has also been utilized since 1975 but these seeding tracks are east <br /> <br />of the control. Finally, the previous NAWC evaluation suggested that little seeding <br /> <br />effect had been observed in the western desert regions since the ratio of observed <br /> <br />to predicted precipitation in that area was near unity (.96). <br /> <br />In spite of the above reasons, it is recognized that the use of this area as <br /> <br />a control could introduce a bias. However, unless seeding has caused a reduction <br /> <br />in the precipitation in the control area, by using this region ,as a control the <br /> <br />effect of the bias would be to reduce the apparent seeding effect in the targets <br /> <br />rather than enhance it. For all of the above reasons, therefore, this control area <br /> <br />was considered acceptable. The fact that the average precipitation observed during <br /> <br />the non-seeded historical period and the seeded period for the stations that make up <br /> <br />the control is nearly identical (1.69 inches'in the not seeded period to 1.68 inches <br /> <br />in the seeded period) would seem to indicate that the area selected is stable and <br /> <br />generally unaffected by seeding. <br /> <br />DEFINITION OF TARGET AREA <br /> <br />Those areas that were selected for evaluation were limited to the high yield <br /> <br />portion of the project near the control. It is recognized that seeding has been <br /> <br />conducted in southeastern Utah, but only since the 1975-1976 season and this area <br /> <br />is far removed from the western control area. Therefore, it has not been included <br /> <br />in this evaluation. An area in Arizona would probably be a more representative <br /> <br />control for southeastern Utah, although much of this region lacks stability in regard <br /> <br />to stations with long-term records. Portions of Tooele County have also been seeded <br /> <br />since the 1975-76 season, although this area has not been evaluated due to the <br /> <br />shorter period of operations (i.e., three years instead of five years of seeding). <br /> <br />- 4 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.