WSPC12892 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( ( . __ u. _ ______ ~.-- -- ,.. r' ~ :-. ~ ro. 1 I. ~ Po / ~,-' n" ~'..' I. i. ": "tl.-i 0,- '... ,; Yll'- :z .... .. _~. ~.. -', d ,. - 1.'\ ,- f....j.r1;.J't ~' ~j ~.' J, I,' I: ,.; ',J., I \~ t, J' ':, , I ~~ ~.~.' ti ,.... Y", ll' t\' - 'I' l. ~ f' "~ h t\ ,. r: t1 j \; ~ Hid (I ... ~t.:. "'--.l....g, . ...~ e Mr. Jesse I",arcn :0, 1980 Page 12 OTHER. 1 NTERPRETATI Ot~S r;m-' ~ - 1Dl[P6&~[lf The Highland and Ninerni1e interests apparently have taken the position that the Trinidad water users have to maintain a ten year average flow each and every year regardless of changing hydrological conditio~s. We find no basis whatsoever for this position. Even the original proposal by the Arkansas Valley 9itch Association referred to L:~e G2i;ltenance or the flo"J do"mstre:::m from the Project as it v:ould have bee" \,:itnout the Project. Certainly the flc...1 without the Project '?i')ldd not have been maintained at an .- erage level curing both dry and wee years. Even maintenance of the flew during any parti~ular year was net to be maintained the same as it would have been since all p:::r~les to the decree haj access to t~e USSR studies which clearly 5:'O','le::: variations between flows of the river v-Jith and "JitrlOut the Proiectcn a short term basis. e 1:'1 cny partict!lar ye:::r of project operation, it was contemplated that the flow at Thatcher would not be the same 2S 1t would have been vii thou;;: the P roj ec t. For examples, see Table 4, wherein the USBR generally calculated a greater depletion with the Project during wet years and a smaller depletion with the Project during dry years than historic depletions. This project depletion as compared to historic conditions wi 1 I obviously affect the streamflow at Thatcher. As shown in T.Jble 4 the residual flo\oJ past the Project even on a ten year running average would have varied from historic residual flows by up to 13 per- cent. This indicates that on a ten year basis, significant variations were contemplated. Even for historic conditions, the residual flow as sho'.m en Table 4 varies on an annual as well as a ten year basis. Using the 1925-1957 period as the base, the ten year running average residual flow would be 28,700 acre-feet. From this average, the ten year running average varied from 14,700 acre-feet at the end of 1940 to 46,300 acre-fee.t at the end of 1950. It is obvious that any attempt e