Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />1501 <br /> <br />than 4 times the aver age resid ual paymen t capac i ty shown in Table 0.5 <br />for the initially identified PIA parcels. Further, the spillway <br />cost for configuration 9A is 57 percent of the total reservoir cost <br />which dispels the concern over the spillway requirement being the <br />driving force. The apparent cost of storage exceeds the residual <br />ability to pay even if no spillway were required. <br /> <br />0.4.10 Simulated River Operations <br /> <br /> <br />A simple computer simulation model of the Mancos River was prepared <br /> <br /> <br />and the river was modeled for three scenarios: <br /> <br /> <br />o Operation of a reservoir at Site 9 to provide a full irrigation <br /> <br /> <br />supply to the initially identified PIA lands; <br /> <br />o Operation of a reservoir at Si te 9 to prov ide the min imum <br />irrigation supply which would meet an acceptable irrigation <br />shortage criteria; and <br /> <br />o Operation of the river without storage to determine the amount of <br /> <br /> <br />new PIA lands that could be supplied with a shorted supply <br /> <br /> <br />~eeting an acceptable irrigation shortage criteria. <br /> <br />The operating simulations of Cases I and II were performed to <br /> <br /> <br />determine the minimum size of reservoir required to provide a full <br /> <br /> <br />supply and to provide a lesser supply meeting a minimum acceptable <br /> <br /> <br />shortage criteria, respectively. The Case III simulations were <br /> <br /> <br />performed to determine what portion of the initially identified PIA <br /> <br />29 <br />