Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~ <br /> <br />Appraisal of the benefits of such operatIons In power or Irrigation Is a separate <br /> <br />problem." Langbein also stated that "The net regulation Indicates, insofar as <br /> <br />main-stem regulation of the Colorado River is concerned, that the capacity of <br /> <br />existing reservoirs and of those under construction [one of which was Lake Powe1l1 <br /> <br />. . . is near a theoretical optimum--the mInimum capacity necessary to provIde <br /> <br />the maximum obtainable regulation. . . ." (emphasis supplied) <br /> <br />Reservoir evaporation, the primary factor evaluated in the Langbein study, <br /> <br />is only one factor of many, and It has been misused and mIsrepresented In the <br /> <br />prescntatipn hy ) lr. Guadagno to the Colorado Open Space Councl I. In hIs attempt <br /> <br />to use the Langbein study he said that with the water surface at elevatIon 3700 <br /> <br />feet, evaporation losses would be increased more than 300.000 acre- feet per <br /> <br />year over the evaporation at 3600 feet. ThIs figure, which should he 279,000 <br /> <br />acre-feet, is based upon the assumption that the reservoIr wuuid be held for <br /> <br />365 days per year constantly at those elevations--an assumption that anyone <br />. . <br /> <br />should know Is erroneous. Over an extended perIod of operatIon the average <br /> <br />difference in operating levels would be appreciably greater than lOa feet because <br /> <br />of drawdown requirements and con.fIguration of the reservoir. CalculatIons show <br /> <br />that the average difference in evaporation over an extended period with the two <br /> <br />elevations not to be exceeded amounts to 180,000 acre-feet--a little more than <br /> <br />Perhaps the errors in figures and assumption above should be overlooked <br /> <br />, <br />I <br />l <br />, <br />t <br />~ <br />, <br />I <br /> <br />half of 300,000 acre-feet. <br /> <br />in view of the fact that the greater fallacy and misrepresentation in the doctor's <br /> <br />analysis Is his blind attempt to equate a dollar-evaluated loss of water by <br /> <br />evaporation from Lake Powell between elevations 3600 and 3700 feet with only <br /> <br />4 <br />