Laserfiche WebLink
<br />flow back into the reservoir or the river channel as the l~vel of the <br /> <br />LJe, <br />~fl- <br /> <br />reservoir recedes. Such water in bank storage is not subject to being <br /> <br />evaporated while it is underground. The assertion that a significant <br />amount of water will find its way back into the river without flowing <br />through the gaging station that measures deliveries of water to the <br />lower basin is not correct. Even if it were, it has no bearing on the <br /> <br /> <br />problem. So long as the water is not lost it is available for use and <br /> <br /> <br />can be accounted for by proper instrumentation. <br /> <br /> <br />The doctor cited the chief engineer of the Colorado River Board <br /> <br /> <br />of California as authority that one-fourth of the water flowing into the <br /> <br /> <br />reservoir on January 4, 1965 was being "lost." It should be recognized <br /> <br /> <br />that the engineer's statement was made at a time when reservoir filling <br /> <br /> <br />was only beginning, and the phenomenon of bank storage is perfectly <br /> <br /> <br />natural. The reservoir had never had a chance to go through a fill- <br /> <br /> <br />drawdown-refill cycle. Studies of the fill-drawdo,m-refill operation <br /> <br /> <br />of that portion of the lllice that has been utilized indicate that the <br /> <br /> <br />water is not being lost. It is being stored in the bank during the fill <br /> <br /> <br />part of the cycle and returned during the drawdown part of the cycle! <br /> <br />In the light of the facts, the statement that--"the filling of <br /> <br /> <br />Lake Powell would not only reduce the ability of the upper basin states <br /> <br /> <br />to fulfill their obligations <br /> <br />Q <br /> <br />8 <br />