Laserfiche WebLink
<br />O~1819 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The revised criteria used to compute the stora.ble flows reduced <br />the reservoir content in these studies and resulted in a reduction in <br />the evaporation of 130 acre-feet per year. <br /> <br />The decrease in the usable return flow of 50 acre-feet per year <br />was the result of determining the points of return in more detail. <br />This expansion in scope made the return flow, in the Model to Hoehne <br />reach, greater than the Hoehne requirement in some cases and <br />decreased the amount of return flow utilized. <br /> <br />The 1,130 acre-feet per year increase in spills and bypasses <br />to John Martin Reservoir was the result of changing the scope of <br />the studies ,from a monthly to a daily analysis. <br /> <br />Inflow to the reservoir was converted to a calendar year basis <br />which resulted in an increase of 70 acre-feet per year. <br /> <br />The aggregate effect of the changes that have been mentioned <br />was a reduction in the project water supply of 980 acre-feet per <br />year (1.6%) from the results of Appendix A--April 1961. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Appendix A--April 1961 indicated that the total project water <br />supply would be 83.5 percent and under the criteria used in the <br />studies each ditch in the project area, other than the lower three <br />ditches, would receive an 83.5 percent water supply. The lower three <br />ditches were able to divert more of the return flow which resulted <br />in a greater supply for these ditches. The 83.5 percent supply to <br />each ditch was altered significantly in the supplement studies due <br />to the project's return to priority utilization. However, the total <br />project supply was reduced only 1.6 percent from that reported in <br />Appendix A, April 1961. The following tabulation is the results of <br />the supplemental studies compared with the historic values: <br /> <br />(Units: 1,000 ac.-ft.) <br /> Project <br /> Diversion Historic Project supply <br />Ditch requirement diversion diversion (percent) <br />- <br />Baca 7.55 9.11 6.33 8~.9 <br />ChUili Y 0.35 1.28 0.3~ o .0 <br />"uth Side 19.79 12,;;'2 15.0 ,/6.2 <br />El Moro 0.47 o. 3 0.43 92.3 <br />Johns Flood 6.45 7.75 6.00 93.0 <br />Model 19.15 11. 90 14.91 77.8 <br />Hoehne 4.72 6.30 4.33 91. 7 <br />Burns -Duncan 1.01 0.53 1.00 99.0 <br />Lewellin; -McCormick 1.20 1.67 1.20 99.9 <br />Salas 0.52 0.97 0.52 99.9 <br />Total 61. 21 52.47 50.13 81.9 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Y Including Victor Florez. <br /> <br />7 <br />