Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I' <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />C\l <br />In <br />!:'- <br />C\l <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />Flows, surplus to downstream irrigation diversions and the Rio Grande <br /> <br /> <br />Compact, existed in 36 consecutive years of the study period. For tbe <br /> <br /> <br />Alternate Step Two mainstem diversion scenario, no Storable Flood Flows <br /> <br /> <br />oceurred. <br /> <br />No Debit Storable Flows occurred in the simulations. The modeling indicated <br /> <br /> <br />that the generallY low levels of Rio Grande Project storage during the <br /> <br />study period required that the captured amounts of COlorado's Compact <br /> <br /> <br />obligation be subsequently released to downstream states. <br /> <br />Tbere are potentially large volumes of Storable Seasonal Flow. The average <br /> <br /> <br />(1948-1985) annual Storable Seasonal Flow ranged from approximately 5,500 <br /> <br />af to over 90,000 af depending on the assumed efficiency of the direct flow <br /> <br /> <br />irrigation systems, the potential reservoir site, and the mainstem <br /> <br />diversion scenario. Storable Seasonal Flows were available in greater than <br /> <br />65 percent of the years studied. <br /> <br />The analyses conducted for this study indicate that the downstream reservoir <br /> <br />sites, RGl on the Rio Grande and SFl on the South Fork, would have the greatest <br /> <br />potential for capturing storable flows. The RG1 site displays the greatest <br /> <br />potential of all sites investigated. It should be kept in mind, however, that <br /> <br />a number of factors in addition to water availability must be considered in the <br /> <br />selection of a potential reservoir site. These other factors such as <br /> <br /> <br />geotechnical suitability, construction costs and environmental considerations <br /> <br />were beyond the scope of this study. <br /> <br />x <br />