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 />1506 <br /> <br />phreatophyte consumption for the entire mainstem downstream of the <br /> <br /> <br />reservoir, and second, the total irrigation demand for all of the <br /> <br /> <br />initially identified PIA parcels except Parcel Ml16. Inflows <br /> <br /> <br />during the irrigation months in excess of the releases required to <br /> <br /> <br />meet downstream demands and all inflows in the non-irr igation months <br /> <br /> <br />were stored in the reservoir or spilled. Losses due to evaporation <br /> <br /> <br />were deducted from reservoir contents. <br /> <br />The computer simulations were iterated, reducing the reservoir <br /> <br /> <br />capacity 100 AF each run, until the smallest reservoir that did not <br /> <br /> <br />resul t in a shortage in supplying the ir r iga tion demand was <br /> <br /> <br />determined. For Case I, the full-supply condition, the required <br /> <br /> <br />size of reservoir was 7,200 AF. An annual summary of the final Case I <br /> <br /> <br />simulation run for the 7,200 AF reservoir is contained in Appendix <br /> <br /> <br />D.3. <br /> <br />The simulations for Case II were essentially identical to those for <br /> <br /> <br />Case I, except the reservoir size was decreased until the smallest <br /> <br /> <br />size was found that did not result in irrigation supply shortages <br /> <br /> <br />that exceeded the adopted acceptable shortage criteria. For Case <br /> <br /> <br />II, the acceptable shorted supply condition, the required size of <br /> <br /> <br />reservoir was 4,400 AF. An annual summary of the final Case II <br /> <br /> <br />simulation run for the 4,400 AF reservoir is contained in Appendix <br /> <br /> <br />D.3. <br /> <br />It was presumed that the residual payment capacity of even the best of <br /> <br />3l <br />