Laserfiche WebLink
Modeling Results for <br />Colorado River Basin States' Modeling of <br />Colorado River and Reservoir Management Strategies <br />50% <br />40% <br />e <br />w <br />v <br />y 30% <br />v <br />v <br />O <br />u <br />20% <br />m <br />.c <br />O <br />A <br />10% <br />0% <br />2005 <br />Figure 4 -4 <br />Probability of Lake Mead Elevation Below 1000 <br />-4--Normal <br />--A- Hybrid <br />- Hybrid revl <br />--9- Hybrid rev2 <br />- -*-Hvbrid rev3 <br />2010 2015 2020 2025 <br />Calendar Year <br />More significant effects are observed in Figure 4 -4 on the probability of Mead <br />going below 1000 from the Hybrid revisions. The effect on increasing the 7.48 <br />MAF band is a maximum 10% increase in 2025. From 2015 through 2025 the <br />probability of going below 1000 under the Hybrid rev2 and Hybrid rev3 strategies <br />is nearly double the probability under the Hybrid Original. <br />4.1.3 Summary of Findings <br />The plots presented show that both Powell and Mead are more sensitive to <br />increasing the elevation range at which Powell releases 7.48 MAF than increasing <br />the Mead balancing elevation. Although an increase in Powell's 10th percentile <br />elevation is gained by extending the 7.48 ban, there is a significant increase in the <br />probability of Mead going below 1000 ft. Based on the Hybrid revisions that were <br />tested; it was found that there are more acceptable Powell and Mead tradeoffs <br />resulting from adjusting the balancing elevation than increasing the 7.48 band. <br />21 <br />