Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Fran Table 8 it appe2rs that for the 17-yenr period <br /> <br />from 1921 to lq37 inclusive <br /> <br />(~) The reservoir would have filled in 12 years. <br /> <br />(b) The reservoir would have been emptied in 13 years. <br /> <br />(e) Irrigation re~uirement \OC)uld have been fully met in <br />four ye~rs. and the shortage in the other 13 years <br />would h'lve !Jean <br /> <br />Nominal in three years. <br />Moderate to he~vy in Seven yenrs. <br />Serious in the three remaining years. <br /> <br />(d) The slight carryover in the four YB'lrS of no short- <br />ar-e would"have been of much value in ~he following <br />year in only one instance. <br /> <br />(e) The remaining short2ge avar~ges 20~ of the diversion <br />demand. <br /> <br />From results of the use of storage as indicated, irrig~tors <br /> <br />would no doubt soon realize that the best us e of stor'lge will be <br /> <br />secured by reducing their use of direct flow below 120 second-fee~ <br /> <br />whenever such diversion prevents the reservoir from filling, and <br /> <br />would egree upon such reduction of diversions to increase storage <br /> <br />catch. This would require diversions at rates below p'lst practice <br /> <br />end at times even below their decreed rights. Irrigators not parti- <br /> <br />cipating in storage would be unlikely to consent to Q ourtailment <br /> <br />of their diversions and so a part of the v~ter saved would go to <br /> <br />these non-participating irrigators. <br /> <br />," <br /> <br />. <br />r- <br />.. , <br /> <br />24 <br />