WSP01796 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.' 001608 Figure 9 Figure 10 Average Lake Powell + Lake Mead Evaporation Average Lower Basin Use As part of the analysis the volume effects were tracked through the year 2050 for the IO-year additional surplus scenario with the following observations. In comparison with the No Surplus scenario, at the end of the 54 years, the IO-year additional surplus scenario: Put to use 8,250,000 acre-feet of additional water during the 11 surplus years. Allowed 576,000 acre-feet of Well ton-Mohawk bypass drainage to discharge to the Cienega de Santa Clara. (Yuma Desalting Plant was not required to r~cover watl?r during the 11 years.) The source of this 8,826,000 AF of additional use was found to be: 6,409,000 AF - reduced flood control releases 615,000 AF - reduced evaporation loss from Lake Powell 1,411,000 AF - reduced evaporation loss from Lake Mead While 252,000 AF 55,000 AF 4,000 AF 80,000 AF - increased shortages (reduced deliveries) - reduced storage in Lake Powell - reduced storage from other upper basin reservoirs - reduced storage in Lake Mead Of the 8,826,000 AF additional use, the source of8,435,000 AF or about 96% came from conserving water that would otherwise be lost. . The comparison could have been made at the year 2040 with essentially the same results. However, had the volumes been calculated before about year 2040 some of the shortages affected would not have been accounted. Conclusions: The analysis could not detect a significant effect caused from a 1996 surplus determination. The analysis also suggests that for the near future, under most hydrologic scenarios the dominate source of the surplus water would not be water that would have otherwise been available to meet shortages, or storage held within the system. The source of the surplused water would be water that would have otherwise been lost from use.