Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A determined effort in this direction would probQbly <br />have permitted filling the reservoir in 1925 and 1933 when it would <br />not othervlise fill. The low runoff in 1931 nnd 1934 v/Iluld preclude <br />filling in these yeRrs. <br />The 3.ugrllf'llted irrigation supply would enable full crops <br /> <br />to be produced in seven years of the 17, nnd nesr-full crops in <br /> <br />two edditional ye3.rs, leaving eight YC3rs vith crops impaired. <br /> <br />Reservoir Oper3.tion - Jackson Gulch Reservoir <br /> <br />Unlike Weber Reservoir, there is no existing reservoir <br /> <br />at tho Jackson Gulch site. Assuming ,'s with Weber Reservoir. <br /> <br />that bank storage ~nd sumner stor~ge catch will fully offset <br /> <br />rescrvcir ev~porQtion loss in the dr~w-dovm senson, a reservoir <br /> <br />capaci ty of 5,263 acre-feet is required for " deli very"'" lhncos <br /> <br />g3.ge of 5,000 ncre-feet. <br />The Jackson Gulch Reservoir would fill ion every yern <br />except 1931 and 1934. In those yenrs the supply of \~tor ~vail- <br />Flble for the J3ckson Gulch site 3VerQges three times that ::It the <br />Weber site. In 1925 and 1933 this reservoir would fill without <br />reduction of diversions such 3S would be re~Jired with Weber <br /> <br />reservoir. These changes in operating results yielding on average <br /> <br />of about 400 acre-feet additional each year, are ~he only cnes <br /> <br />occasioned by building the J~ckson Gulch inste~d of the Weber <br />Reservoir. <br /> <br />2316 <br /> <br />25 <br />