Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 3 - <br /> <br />Later studies, as explained hereafter, .,hich <br /> <br />used the change in storage of tributary reservoi rs <br />C) <br />'.:l in the area, are for the period 1925-55 because records <br />(\J <br />~ of change in storage are available only for this later <br />.... <br />~ period. <br /> <br />Shown on Figures 1 through 6 are various relationships <br /> <br />of Hinter accretions versus previous summer's diversions <br /> <br />using different" combinations of months and diversion <br /> <br />records, as well as inclusion or exclusion of change in <br /> <br />storage of Horse Creek, Adobe Creek and the Great Plains <br /> <br />System Reservoirs. Examination of these plots reveals <br /> <br />no consistency in results and no discernible change in the <br /> <br />relationship after John Martin Reservoir started <br />storing Hater. <br />Plates 1 through 5 are mass curves derived from <br /> <br />data accumulated as explained above. The purpose of <br /> <br />the mass curves was to determine if there were any <br /> <br />significant changes in the relationships of the cumulative <br /> <br />diversions versus cumulative accretions. <br /> <br />There is some trend toward increased winter <br /> <br />accretions for later years as shown on Plates 2, 3 and 4; <br /> <br />however, when corrections are made for changes in storage <br /> <br />of tributary reservoirs, the trend is not apparent; <br /> <br />see Plate 1. <br /> <br />From the above study it can be concluded that <br />the inconsistency of the results indicates; (1) <br /> <br />a complex relationship betHeen diversions and return <br /> <br />flow and (2) that return flOH benefits, because of <br />John ;!artin li'eservoir regulation, are not discernible. Some <br />