My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC06972
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
19000-19999
>
WSPC06972
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:08:40 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:11:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8283.100
Description
Colorado River Computer Models - Colorado River Simulation System - Reclamation - CORSIM
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/1973
Author
DOI-BOR
Title
Application of a River Network Model to Water Quality Investigations for the Colorado River
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
230
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 />0G184il <br /> <br />(3b) - 2000 - The (lb) - 2000 modified run is used as the base <br />condition (Run No. 59). Because of the additional water avail- <br />able through weather modification, CAP was increased to 1,540,000 <br />acre-feet/year and Imperial to 7 million acre-feet/year. The low <br />salinity computed at Imperial is due primarily to the dilution <br />effects of the increased flows at Imperial. <br /> <br />(3c) - 2000 - The (lc) - 2000 run is the base condition. <br />CAP was set to 1,540,000 acre-feet/year and Imperial was <br />to 6,230,000 acre-feet/year to offset increased supplies <br />weather modifications. <br /> <br />Again, <br />increased <br />from <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />The following conclusions are based on experience in applying the <br />network model to the Colorado River Basin and on the computed results. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />(l} Although the model and Biennial Report methods are similar <br />in certain respects, the fundamental difference is that the model <br />simulates reservoir operations. As a consequence, the model requires <br />computation of ungaged inputs for each reach. <br /> <br />~ <br />I <br /> <br />L <br />... <br /> <br />2; A model designed to simulate short-term system operations <br />requires stringent duplication of complicated operating policies <br />in contrast to a long-term planning model. Unforeseen technology, <br />political, social, and climatic factors may easily overshadow the <br />effect of detailed operations. <br /> <br />(3) Model results should be interpreted in terms of the mean <br />effects due to given conditions. Computed values at given times <br />should be used with caution. Conclusions based on the single <br />sequence of hydrologic events may be misleading. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />(4) Either present modified or historic data can be used in com- <br />puting ungaged inflows. Present modified data are required for <br />upstream boundary inputs to include the effect of unmodeled por- <br />tions of the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />(5) The present modified flow concept presents some difficulties <br />where reservoirs are involved, particularly new ones. <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />,~ <br /> <br />(6) A lack of measured data provides the motivating force behind <br />the ungaged inflow approach. This results in all errors being <br />reflected in the computed inflows and leaves no information for <br />model verification. <br /> <br />(7) The ungaged inflow approach generally produces reasonable <br />means for the period, but may produce unrealistic variations. <br /> <br />34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.