Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.,.' <br /> <br />1 <br />, ' <br /> <br />C.:l <br />(~ <br />") <br />~ <br />..... <br />en <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />period 1914-45. For the period after 1945 the differences are due primarily <br /> <br />to the manner in which the data was handled; although there are minor <br /> <br />differences in such items as changes in project reservoir contents and <br /> <br />transmountain diversion figures because, due to lack of records, a number <br /> <br />of these have had to be estimated. <br /> <br />The following summary table shows a comparison of 1968 modified <br /> <br />flows as computed by the USBR and the Type I study group. <br /> <br />Comparison of Data and 1968 Modified Flows <br />(based on 1914-:65 period) <br />Units: 1000 acre-feet <br /> <br /> USBR Type I <br /> (with salvage (w /0 salvage <br /> effects) effects) Difference <br />Historic flows (avg) 12,426 12,426 0 <br />Past consumptive use 2,218 2,448 230 <br />Virgin flow (avg) 14,644 14,874 230 <br />Present use (w /0 evap. <br />from Navajo's res.) 2,721 2,891* 170** <br />1968 modified flow 11,923 11,983 60** <br /> <br />* The Type I study shows a figure of 2808 for normalized uses as <br />of 1965 which included 31 for evaporation from Navajo reservoir. In order <br />for the Type I study to reflect 1968 uses on the same basis as the USBR <br />study it was necessary to subtract 31 and add 114 for increased uses be- <br />tween 1965 and 1968. (2808 - 31 + B4 = 2891) <br /> <br />** The Engineering Advisory Committee estimated 73,000 acre-feet <br />of salvage at Lee Ferry. If salvage were to be taken into account in the <br />Type I Study the difference in present depletions would be reduced to 97 <br />and the difference in 1968 modified flows increased to 133. The USBR in <br />its CRSP studies allowed 115,000 acre-feet for salvage. On this basis <br />the difference in present depletions would be further reduced to 55. <br /> <br />2 <br />