Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />U02828 <br /> <br />In actual operation, flood control operations might increase the <br />releases during the winter months. They would, however, never be <br /> <br />reduced below that planned for at the start of the water year. <br /> <br />Later analyses and discussions showed that a 6-month release commitment <br /> <br />might be more realistic and this commitment was incorporated into sub- <br /> <br />sequent modeling procedures including the CRSS production run~. <br /> <br />The last 7 months of the year, the releases are indicated on a monthly <br />basis. The strategy is the same as the base case except for the already <br />committed MWD, CAP, and Mexican surplus deliveries. The strategy the <br />last 7 months is to, using the runoff forecasts, end the year with the <br />required flood control space. <br /> <br />As with Lake Mead, a commitment for Lake Powell surplus releases is only <br />- <br />made for the first 5 months. These surplus releases are based on a <br />planned annu~l surplus release which is patterned throughout the water <br />year. The pattern adopted for this analysis is basically the histori- <br />cally observed surplus release pattern. This pattern is listed by <br /> <br />months for the "firm release" period: <br /> <br />Month <br /> <br />Percent of <br />annual <br />total <br /> <br />October <br />November <br />December <br />January <br />February <br /> <br />6.9 <br />6.8 <br />10.4 <br />10.8 <br />6.4 <br /> <br />13,'7 <br />,j4.1 <br />3<(.Q <br />41.3 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />, --& <br />l.a,t~" /J <br />j,O fl., fo()Je <br />, ,.t~ l ' <br />J-U<. iJ.7 es <br />5~r P jea5 <br />(e, 1 <br />