Laserfiche WebLink
<br />003139 <br /> <br />Page 38 <br /> <br />The Upper Basin demands total 3.454 and 5.527 MAF in the current and full <br /> <br />development (ultimate) scenarios. The two corresponding Lower Basin demands <br /> <br />total 7.402 and 8.864 MAF. Adding in the 1.5 MAF Mexico delivery yields total <br /> <br /> <br />demands of 12.356 and 15.611 MAF for the current and ultimate scenarios, <br /> <br />respectively. <br /> <br />4. Priorities and Operation - unconstrained case <br /> <br />In the unconstrained case, water was allocated among uses according to the <br /> <br />net value of water accruing to that use. Storage was maximized at the end of <br /> <br />each season after all demands were satisfied. It was assumed that no delivery <br /> <br />obligation was in effect at Lee Ferry and that all releases from Glen Canyon <br /> <br />were made only to satisfy Lower Basin demands and the Mexico delivery <br /> <br />obligation. <br /> <br />Demands throughout the entire basin, with the exception of the Mexico <br /> <br />delivery, were given priorities which reflected their net economic value and <br /> <br />were mapped into the range 10-80 (Table 111-3). Note that CAP water in this <br /> <br />case was assumed to go entirely to M&1 uses. <br /> <br />Table 111-7 summarizes the basis for the priorities given to water use in <br /> <br />the unconstrained case. The marginal economic value of water in each type of <br /> <br />use at each location was adopted from an earlier publication (Krutilla, Bowes <br /> <br />and Sherman, 1983), and is shown in the third column of Table 111-7. <br /> <br />Water will generally be supplied to a given node by implementing a series <br /> <br />of projects. A unit cost was determined for each necessary project. For <br /> <br />federal projects (USBR), agency budget requests (form PF-65) and project data <br /> <br />sheets were used where available. For other projects, a variety of sources were <br />