Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ililJ876 <br /> <br />13) The Record of Decision for Interim Swplus Guidelines (as modeled in the ISC FEIS) <br />will be used to determine swplus conditions. The swplus criteria will be in effect for a <br />12-year period beginning on January 1, 2005 and ending December 31, 2016. At the <br />conclusion of the 12-year period, the swplus criteria will revert to the 70R Strategy. <br /> <br />14) The shortage assumptions used in the SIA-FEIS will not be applied to the operation of <br />Lake Mead. At times when Lake Mead does not have enough water to meet all <br />downstream demands (7.5 maf/yr to the Lower Basin states, plus 1.5 maf/yr to Mexico), <br />a mass balance will be used to determine how much water is available for downstream <br />delivery in each month (inflow plus water in storage above de~ol minus losses). The <br />amount of shortage will be computed as the total downstre.aur aeiiiand minus the water <br />available. The shortage will be divided on a pror~J)asis using each entity's <br />apportionment divided by the total apportionment 12Y thoSl: entities sharing in the <br />shortage. SNW A's lower intake will be assumedJ2 B&.. at 100lEfeet and therefore, no <br />deliveries will be made to SNW A if Lake Mead is:-oelow -that elevati~ <br />a) If Lake Mead's elevation is greater than ~ual to 1000 feet: _ <br />i) Arizona will be assigned 60.87% ~tal amOunt of the shorta~8 dividtXl <br />by 2.8+1.5+0.3 = 4.6) - '-_ j? <br />ii) Mexico will be assigned 32.61 % of the to~liount of the shortage (1.5 divided <br />by 4.6) ~. . <br />iii) Nevada will be assigned 6.~e total amOlm~{)f the shortage (0.3 divided <br />by 4.6) -:;:: . . . . ' <br />b) If Lake Mead's elevation is less th~ 1 OO~ . ~ <br />i) Arizona will b~igned 65.12~..ffie toui'fa~*,unt of the shortage (2.8 divided <br />by 2.8+ 1.5 :'4.3~ "%. .;:- <br />ii) Mexico,~ be assi~ 34.88% of.}lle total amount of the shortage (1.5 divided <br />by4.6f . ~ ... ... ~..;.. <br />:.F.V__ ~~' .f <br />Recall_tlJa~~ curren~Bwdef 'configuration, the Priority 4 uses in Arizona are not <br />c~y repre~sep~~ (SIA-FEIS, Appendix G, page 2-5). Therefoe, all of <br />~a's shortage ~sum~ absorbed by the Central Arizona Project (CAP), <br />dowlEm;.a total delive~~ 72 k;yr. This minimum delivery reflects the water delivered <br />by C~ Native Sherican Tribes (the Ak-Chin and Pima-Maricopa Indian <br />communifi~:,. _- <br /> <br />If there is still no;mfficient water to meet remaining downstream demands once CAP is <br />at its minimum d#ifvery of 72 kaf fyear, the MWD will absorb the remaining amount of <br />the shortage. <br /> <br />Note: The shortage strategy used in the SIA-FEIS was a "two-level" strategy. At the 1st <br />level, Lake Mead elevation 1083 feet (the published minimwn power fool elevation) was <br />protected with a probability of approximately 80 percent. At the 2n level, Lake Mead <br />elevation of 1000 feet was protected with a nearly 100% probability (SIA-FEIS, Volwne n, <br />Appendix G, Section 2.4, page 2.7). <br /> <br />Draft: Subject to Change <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Last Revision: May 13, 2004 <br />