|
<br />
<br />1298
<br />
<br />)
<br />
<br />-6-
<br />
<br />I It will be noted from the foregoing tabul,q,tions t~at, while Utah shows a
<br />small deficit under average conditions for the long-time period, the Utah deficit
<br />durin~ the dry decade is 9.4~ of the actual amount of wat~r that reaches Lee
<br />Ferry an~ th~t thp. tot~ deficit (New Mexico also teing a debtor) exceeds the con-
<br />tributions of TIyow~np, and Arizona. The last lRbulation shows that during such a
<br />decade there v~uld apparently be a short~ge of 3,O~5,710 a~re-feet yearly. It is
<br />at once apparent that during the othp.r 20 years of the 30 year period there must
<br />h3ve been a sizeable anr.u~l s~plus. The avowp.d purpose of the proposed middle
<br />river stor~~e is to save such surplus until it is needed to make deliveries at
<br />Lee Ferry. Othen~se it might overfill lower river reservoirs and be wasted. The
<br />releasp- of such middle river storage throUJih power pl"'lnts to make electricity
<br />WOuld presumnbly nay for such reservoirs. If the reAl picture of upper river del-
<br />iveries at Lee Ferry is to te shown, the operation of middle river storage must
<br />be Bet out, At least in R.pproximate f~shion, ~s is ~tteMnt~d below.
<br />
<br />APPROXIVATE ANAlYSIS
<br />OPERATmF' l!IDDlE RIVER STOR.4GE
<br />FOR THE PEllI0D19J4 - 1943
<br />
<br />All eV~DOrqtion losses have been
<br />deduct.ed ~ot:h"e;=d~pfetio~
<br />shown in this & pr"v:ious tables
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Tota.l Outflow, 13,854,730 x 30(year.) . 415,641,900 ac-ft.
<br />Outflow 1931-40, 10,150,270 X 10(year.) . 101,503,7f)O "
<br />Total Outflow for 20 yeRrs . 314,139,200 " -
<br />Deduct for Comoact Delivery, 20 ye~rs . 150,000,000 " ~
<br />For Upper ~sin ~p1ption or M. R. Star. . 164,139,200 " <-
<br />Upper BAsin Depln. 7,065,100 x 20(yeor.) . 14J,)02,ooo "
<br />Gross for Middle FUver Stora~e 20(yeAr.) . 22,837,200 " -
<br />Annu"'!l aver~ge for 20 yenrs . 1,141,860 " --
<br />
<br />Deficit, 1931-40 3,085,700 x 10(years) =
<br />Gross f~rn ~~ddle River Stor~ge
<br />Apparent Deficit for 30 ye~rs, 1914-43
<br />Aver~p'e annu~l deficit for 30 ~dars
<br />
<br />30,857,000
<br />=22.837.'-00
<br />e,v18,OOO
<br />267,320
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />=
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />t1111
<br />
<br />Several observatiors now st!em. pertinent r~gardin~ the foreloing very approx-
<br />~te analysis of reservoir operation. First, it is h~sed upon perfect operation,
<br />which is ra"ely realized. Against this it is only necessary to point out thnt
<br />th~ depletions set up in the bnsin report are likewise hnsed on perfect operation
<br />and that th~ one offsets t~e oth~r. Only 17 of the 20 good yc~r5, not inc1udp.d in
<br />the dry dec~de, come before th~t dccpde begins. Alternativ~Jy, at 1e~st two, aRd
<br />prob~bly four ye~~s dUrin~ th~ dry cycle would have added ~rpreci~b1y to ~iddle
<br />riv~r stor'\pe, even under ultL~,te conditions. No doubt cert~in com.promises be-
<br />tween loop, r~nge 3ccru~1 of stored w~t~r and production of el~ctric~l ener~v ~t
<br />r.ti.dd1a river r~st'!rvoirs m.jPjlt hnve "b:!:~n !ltte-mptp-d bei'o!"" the dry dec1de, if lower
<br />rivnr stor~~~ could hold extr~ rpl~~s~s. If th:s hqd b~en 10ne (it nned not be)
<br />the 10 :rP,r periods of cr~~dit at Loop. F"rr., provided in the CO!Tlr~ct, .....ould still
<br />go far tc t~k~ the p1ac~ of l~ssened rel~~s-s during t~~ dry dp.c~de. As a m~tter
<br />of-course, su....h ~n o-I':'rqtion !IS th~t shown would renuire sto!'''Fe cll.p,,"city on the
<br />~dd1e rivQr much in ~xc~ss of ths dry rl~c~~e deficicncv of 31,000,000 ~cr~-fect.
<br />f~o c)"li!" -"5 '!'.adp. th...t. t11~ r;,.~~~;.;oin: is r'lrticula:r1~' :t.c,:ur.;\t~. but it does point
<br />up the f!l.ct th.1.t the bRsin r"!'"'Ort should cont.un SO::1e sl.lch representations.
<br />
|