Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.~ <br />C\J could be assumed to be satisfied. When el€ flow drops below 11,000 <br />r- <br />acre-feet per month (or 180 ds instantaneous flow) all rights can not be <br /> <br />satisfied. While this criterion WR$ not applied in the studies herein, upon <br /> <br />review it is found to be accurate for the studies as well as for actual con- <br /> <br />ditions. <br /> <br />Pot Hook Reservoir <br /> <br />Pot Hook Reservoir provides, within prRctical limits, the complete <br /> <br />regulation of Slater Fork. In the operation study, water is bypassed for down- <br /> <br />stream rights in Area 6. During the winter months it is estimated that about <br /> <br />100 acre-feat per month or from 1 to 2 cfs of seepage will occur. All water <br /> <br />above the required bypass is stored for release to the Pot Hook Canal for <br /> <br />irrigation or, as occurred in one month of the study (August 19S9), to the <br /> <br />Little Snake River to satisfy demands there. Pot Hook Canal losses were <br /> <br />estimated on the basis of capacity and were varied only in times of shortage. <br /> <br />Losses were estimnted by the formula: L=0.2 CO 1/2 V-l/2. Where Leloss <br /> <br />in cfs per mile, 0 is canal capacity in cis, V is water velocity in the canal <br /> <br />in feet per second and C is a constant depending on canal bank material. <br /> <br />Pot Hook Reservoir was assumed to have a content of 28,200 acre-feet <br /> <br />at the end of 1952. This figure was that shown in the Bureau of Reclamation <br /> <br />studies. Table 19 shov!s that Pot Hook Reservoir would have been empty 5 years <br /> <br />out of the 8 studied and would h~ve spilled once. There was insufficient water <br /> <br />to meet demands on the reservoir in the five years when the reservoir was <br /> <br />emptied. In four of these years, the shortage was sizable and occurred in <br /> <br />- 5 -- <br />