Laserfiche WebLink
<br />003119 <br /> <br />Page 18 <br /> <br />2. Water demands <br /> <br />Future water demands are well-represented by water use forecasts and plans <br /> <br />of water development entities. Such forecasts and plans tend to assume no <br /> <br />changes in water-use technology or cost relationships. No econometric <br /> <br />projections of future water demands (in which such changes might be considered) <br /> <br />were undertaken in this study. <br /> <br />3. Instream uses <br /> <br />Demands for instream water uses, such as hydroelectric powergeneration, <br /> <br />salinity control, recreation, and environmental protection, have no effect on <br /> <br />interstate water allocation. This is obviously invalid in the institutionally- <br /> <br />constrained scenarios, and would be invalid in the unconstrained scenarios if <br /> <br />! <br /> <br />water rights for such uses were to be established, as they are in fact <br /> <br />established in the case of hydroelectric power production. <br /> <br />4. Linearity <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />All input-output relationships are linear (an assumption of the linear <br /> <br />programming model). This assumption is reasonably valid for most aspects which <br /> <br />were modeled, with the notable exceptions of reservoir evaporation, which was <br /> <br />approximated with a table of estimates and linear interpolation, and channel <br /> <br />losses. The linearity assumption would be invalid for some instream uses. <br /> <br />5. Aggregation <br /> <br />The many individual water rights in the Upper Basin, especially, could be <br /> <br />aggregated into just a few nodes representing the major Colorado River reaches <br /> <br />and tributaries without vitiating the conclusions of the analysis. This is <br /> <br />believed to be largely true insofar as interstate aspects are concerned, but <br /> <br />limits the validity of any conclusions regarding intrastate water allocation (it <br />