WSPC01380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

003135 Page 34 In the Lower Basin, small uses were aggregated in the Upper Basin. However, most uses in the Lower Basin are served by large diversions which provide water to a single class of users. In the constrained case, these diversions have different priorities. Thus, it was necessary to provide a separate node for each of the large Lower Basin diversions. With the exception of node 8, M&1 and energy demands were assumed to be equal across months. Agricultural demands were allocated, based on Bureau of Reclamation data, as 10, 10, 20, and 60% in the Upper Basin and 20, 20, 20, and 40% in the Lower Basin, to the winter, spring, runoff, and irrigation seasons, respectiely. Two water use scenarios were developed based on consumption at the current time and at ultimate development. Table 111-3 displays the complete water demand (labeled "consumption" in Table 111-3) data set used for each of the scenarios. 3. Priorities and Operation - constrained case The Upper Basin Reservoirs were filled after any demand in the Upper Basin (including the Lee Ferry delivery obligation) but before any demand or reservoir in the Lower Basin. The Lake Mead (et al) conservation pool was filled after all demands (excepting the MWD excess demands) in the Lower Basin were satisfied. Most Lower Basin demand could be satisfied from storage in Lake Mead. The single exception was California's excess diversion (above the 4.4 MAF allocated to that state by the decision in Arizona v. California). All beneficial consumptive uses in the Upper Basin were given identical priorities. So long as all demands are met, there is no need to differentiate among users. In the case of shortage, recognizing that the purpose of the study