Laserfiche WebLink
<br />003146 <br /> <br />Page 45 <br /> <br />twice as much of the additional runoff evaporates and a nearly equivalent drop <br /> <br />in outflow to Mexico occurs. In short, the runoff increases which could be <br /> <br />produced by vegetation manipulation in the Arapaho National Forest would not <br /> <br />relieve water shortages nor increase water use under existing institutional <br /> <br />arrangements, except in the Lower Division under maximum water demand <br /> <br />assumptions. Virtually all of the increased runoff would flow across the <br /> <br />international border or would be evaporated or stored (which storage would later <br /> <br />be divided among outflow, evaporation, and consumptive use in probably much the <br /> <br />same ratios). <br /> <br />3. Effects of Institutional Change <br /> <br />The scenarios which included the assumption of no change in the <br /> <br />I <br />~ <br /> <br />institutional arrangements for interstate allocation of Colorado River water <br /> <br />included both a set of priorities among virtual diversion points (objective <br /> <br />function weights) and a set of final demands for water which were consistent <br /> <br />institutional arrangements was removed by reordering priorities among virtual <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />with those institutional arrangements. The assumption of unchanged <br /> <br />diversion points to correspond with the approximate market prices for water for <br /> <br />those uses at those points. Projected demands for water were not altered in the <br /> <br />current or full development scenarios. <br /> <br />The effects of removing the institutional constraints under current demand <br /> <br />conditions are shown in Table IV-l. In part, (with natural flows) they were to <br /> <br />increase average demand evaporation by 79,000 acre-feet, to decrease average <br /> <br />annual outflow to Mexico by 331,000 acre-feet, and to decrease the annual drop <br /> <br />in reservoir contents by 43,000 acre-feet. These changes are attributable to <br /> <br />removal of the flood control operation rules at Lake Mead, and the subordination <br /> <br />of storage to the California "excess" use. Higher levels at Lake Mead caused <br />