My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Conjunctive Use Model S-1
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Conjunctive Use Model S-1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2012 2:45:01 PM
Creation date
7/19/2012 1:49:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Conjunctive Use Model S-1
State
CO
Title
Conjunctive Use Model S-1
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Draft — January 27 -5, 2005 Not for- Gifoulat o <br />Disclaimer <br />The S -1 model in no way reflects any agreements among the Basin States on the <br />operation of the Colorado River Reservoirs. The logic used in S -1 in no way implies any <br />interpretation of the "Law of the River." <br />The ISG must be turned off during all periods during which the above criteria are in <br />operation. <br />I feel that elevation 3560 is too low to begin to react to a period of rp olonged drought <br />particularly if the trigger at Mead is going to be 1050. Reclamation needs to start <br />reducing releases soon enough to make a cut of 750,000 AF or less worth something <br />during the drought period. Starting to low does not buy sufficient time to react Sug est <br />starting to reduce Powell releases at least at elevation 3570. <br />I concur with using 7.48 MAY as the ROM for the initial model run. <br />I concur with using elevation 1050 at Mead as the WST. <br />I concur with the concept and suggest something in the 3575 elevation range or <br />approximately 9.75 MAF. <br />I concur with the concept of when the TEL is turned off. However I am also concerned <br />that during an extended drought that this simply reduces the 602(a) storage trigger for an <br />extended period as a practical matter. Therefore I strongly agree that even when the <br />proposed criteria herein are operational that there is no equalization when the Active <br />Storage in Powell is less than the active storage in Mead. <br />I disagree with adjusting the TEL until volumes are approximately equal unless such <br />adjustment considers at minimum the tributary inflows and provides credit for at least <br />one -half of those inflows to the Upper Basin. This is one alternative that favors neither <br />the Upper Basin or Lower Basin legal positions and there may be others. I feel very <br />strongly that some middle ground on this issue must be found even for interim <br />'The SO AbsPro_1000 model does not protect the minimum power pool elevation of 3,490 feet at Lake <br />Powell. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.