Laserfiche WebLink
The results from each month of simulation are as follows: <br />1. Surface -water diversions for each canal. <br />2. Ground -water diversions under each canal. <br />3. Streamflow at the State line. <br />-water storage by reach and side of the <br />4. Change in ground <br />river. <br />S. Contents of John Martin Reservoir and the amount of water <br />assigned to the permanent pool. <br />6. Return flow to the river and change in storage in the <br />nod ground -water system for all future months due to operation during all <br />preceding months and the present month. <br />Assumptions <br />The si u'l'-t'_OP. was done twice, once under normal operation and once <br />with the proposed change in use of water. All data and operating procedures <br />were the same for both simulations except as noted below. The difference <br />between the simulations is a measure of the hydrologic effects of the <br />proposed change in water use. <br />The Division of Wildlife has a right to 11.24 percent of the water <br />diverted by the Catlin Canal. Under the change in water use simulation, <br />11.24 percent of the direct diversion by the canal was assigned to the <br />Division. However, because this water was historically applied as <br />irrigation water with resulting return flow, only the consumptive use of <br />this water was allowed to be transferred in this simulation.M The <br />consumptive use was estimated to be 77 percent (Taylor and Luckey, <br />1972). The remaining 23 percent of the water was returned to the river <br />to replace the historical return flow. <br />I1 <br />