My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC06829
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
19000-19999
>
WSPC06829
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:08:00 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:05:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Colorado River Basin General Publications - Augmentation-Weather Modification
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
4/15/1983
Author
DOI-BOR
Title
CREST - Colorado River Enhanced Snowpack Test - Program Plan
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />/ <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />\ <br />V~/ <br />I, ., <br />/1> <br />~~. r. <br />I, " <br />! (' ; <br />II' f- ',' <br />I' ( <br />I' <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />".'\' <br />" ' <br />.~..: \. <br />\ "~I <br /> <br />f\\ i' <br />f:' <br />I <br /> <br />l),1J196 <br /> <br />6. On the second page of Appendix A, it is suggested that <br />Reclamation~projections are more accurate than the Forum's <br />projections. I truly doubt that one is any more accurate <br />than the other. <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />Under II A in Appendix A, the way this statement reads <br />602(a) will always be fixed based on the Upper Basin <br />depletion schedule at that time and as projected forward. <br />This 602(a) curve can then reflect all model changes as well <br />since it will be reevaluated frequently, Thus, it would <br />seem to be to the Upper Basin's advantage to fix a firm date <br />to this curve, even though it may not be practical or <br />acceptable to do so. The latest 602(a) storage curve I have <br />seen in print is contained in the Reclamation Report of June <br />5, 1978 and ~ utilizes an August 1976 depletion <br />schedule. <br />k <br />Under lIB in Appendix t, alternative 3 which calls for an <br />objective delivery of the compact point of 9.1 maf I feel is <br />open to further interpretation. It seems to me that the <br />entire transportation loss should be charged against the 1.4 <br />maf enhanced flow rather than the basin states. This would <br />result in a delivery at the compact point of 8.8 maf instead <br />of 9,1 maL <br />K <br />Under lIe in Appendix flI, we need to watch the effect of <br />changing the uncertainty factors with respect to <br />implementation of the furplus criteria. As pointed out <br />surplus criteria are~rmplement4when the probability of flood <br />control spill in the subsequent 2 years reaches 50 percent <br />or more. Increasing the uncertainty factors in 1984 has <br />created this flood control release situation at present and <br />any further increase in these uncertainty values will make <br />surplus conditions a certain'r;t !J1 the next few years, The <br />disadvantage to this is tha~ cause Mead to draw down faster <br />than normal which results in a higher potential for <br />equalization. <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />9. <br /> <br />jbvm <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />September 25, 1984 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.