Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />t. <br />,I <br /> <br /> <br />l <br />~, <br />f <br />11., <br /> <br />I <br />~ <br /> <br />! <br /> <br />i <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />.~ I'" .....!"':"' <br />I~ ..J .. ...J <br /> <br />HYDROGRAPHY <br /> <br />67 <br /> <br />to Lake !\lead since 1897, wit.h years since 1921 measured and earlier <br />data estimated from the best available upstream or downstream <br />gaging records. This inflow record is then replotted on the same <br />plate in the form of a differential mass curve, in terms of the <br />average intlow for 1905-1949, This nUlSS curve shows the cumula- <br />tive deviation from the mean, to simulate the operation of such a <br />reservoir as Lake Mead (but assumed to be of unlimited capacity <br />and with no allowance made for losses) if the same cycle of runoff <br />now recurred under conditions of present upstream conditions 01' <br />development and with full lower basin development or consumption <br />approximated, the mean annual inflow being uniformly released <br />from the reservoir. Each successive year"s excess or deficiency is <br />plotted upward or downward, respectively, so that a sustained up- <br />ward trend of the curve to the right, as from 1905 to 1930, incli- <br />cates an alJl10rmally wet period. while a sustained dowl1\\'ard trend <br />to the right shows a subnormally dry period of years. The steepness <br />of the trend line. or of each segment of the curve, indicates the <br />intensity or severity of the wet or dry period by its variation from <br />the horizontal. The latter represents a year or succession of years <br />of average runoff. <br />As the differential mass curve of figure 5 indicates, the recent <br />10-year critical period of drouth, 1931-1940, is really only a part <br />of the longer drouth of 1930-1948, which as of 1949 is obviously <br />not nece~~arily ended yet. Conditions O'ier the longer period have <br />been auout 10 per cent more severe than the 10-year critical period. <br />as measured uy the cumulative deficiency of inflow as an index of <br />resulting drawdown of reservoir Htorage. As a base for this mass <br />curve the 1905-1949 mean runoff has been used as a more probable <br />approximation to the long-time mean than is the longer 1897-1949 <br />mean of record (and eady estimates, the probable accuracy of which <br />diminishes considerably as their date recedes further into the pre- <br />record past), because the longer number of years includes parts <br />at least of two major drouths and the one intervening long wet <br />period, The gradual extension of the recent (or present) drouth <br />has of course made this distinction small in amount and of less <br />significance than in eHrlier years. <br />Owing to general interest in the lower Colorado River hydro- <br />graphy at the present time and because the runoff records are not <br />widely available immediately, due to the unavoidable publication <br />lag in issuing Federal serial bulletins and water supply papers, the <br />preliminary hydrographic data for the year ending September 30, <br />1949 are summarized in table 14. <br />