Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Small Reservoir Feasibility Study <br /> <br />S-3 <br /> <br />TIlE BASIN COMPUTER MODEL <br /> <br />A computer model of basin hydrology and water administration was developed to <br />simulate water deliveries and instream flow conditions under a variety of demand and facility <br />development scenarios. The model represented the Blue River basin and portions of the <br />Colorado River basin as a network of stream reaches, reservoirs, water rights, and water <br />delivery systems and allocated water inflows to specific delivery systems based on the water <br />rights priorities and operating rules associated with each system, <br /> <br />The model simulated in detail the operations of all major water rights in Summit <br />County, including Green Mountain and Dillon reservoirs, and the terms of the Summit <br />County Agreement, (Green Mountain Reservoir operations were partially constrained to be <br />consistent with studies done by the USBR in connection with the Water Marketing Program,) <br />Releases from the Historic User Pool (HUP) and the Water Marketing Sales Pool were limited <br />to 66,000 AF Iyr and 20,000 AF Iyr, respectively, Summit County users were assumed to <br />contract for their presently requested allocations of Sales Pool water, Sales Pool exchanges <br />were not permitted to draw reservoir levels below the minimum levels specified by the <br />USBR. <br /> <br />Water rights on the Colorado River above and below the Blue River were modeled in <br />an aggregated fashion, although the major senior rights at Cameo and Shoshone were <br />explicitly represented, Denver's substitute sources of water for Blue River exchanges were <br />modeled in aggregated form, <br /> <br />The model operated on a monthly time step over a 31-year hydrologic study period <br />corresponding to water years 1952-82. In each month of the study period, the model <br />simulated water exchanges and reservoir operations by a sequence of seven solution steps. <br />These steps are listed in Table S-3, It is important to note that the order of these steps <br />reflects the assumed relative priorities of exchanges, These relative priorities are presently in <br />dispute and may not reflect the views of all study participants, <br /> <br />Table S-3 <br />Steps in Basin Model Solution <br /> <br />Step 1 Water allocation based on strict water rights priorities <br />Step 2 Out-of.priority diversions by Denver and Colorado Springs ahead of Green <br />Mountain <br />Step 3 Releases from the Green Mountain Historic User Pool (including exchanges) <br />Step 4 Exchanges from Windy Gap and Clayton Hill covered by the Summit County <br />Agreement <br />Step 5 Releases from the Green Mountain Sales Pool (including exchanges covered <br />by the Summit County Agreement) <br />Step 6 Denver exchanges to Dillon, against Shoshone and Cameo calls, from Williams <br />Fork and Muddy Creek <br />Step 7 Green Mountain Reservoir power release adjustment <br /> <br />The basin model was calibrated over the period 1975.82 by comparing simulated <br />flows and reservoir contents to historically observed values at eight calibration sites, <br />