Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A much gre~ter quantity of ~~ter is available for storage <br /> <br />at Jackson Gulch, but the limited size of the reservoir does not <br /> <br />permit catching it. At Jackson Gulch, winter operation of the <br /> <br />feeder would be necessary only in years of very low runoff, which <br /> <br />is a great advantage. With but one canal to operate and less winter <br /> <br />operation required, this reservoir would prove simpler and less <br /> <br />expensive to operate than the Weber Reservoir. <br /> <br />From Table 3 it appears th~t for the 17-year period from <br /> <br />1921 to 1937, inclusive <br /> <br />(a) The reservoir would hove filled in 15 years. <br /> <br />(b) The reservoir would have been emptied in 13 years. <br /> <br />(c) Irrigation requirement would have been fully met in <br />four years, and the shortages in the other 13 years <br />would have been <br /> <br />Nominal in three years <br />Moderate to heavy in 8 years. <br />Serious in two years. <br /> <br />(d) The slight carryover in years of no shortage would <br />h~ve been of no value in the following years, as <br />the reservoir would have filled without it. <br /> <br />(e) The remaining shortages would have averaged 17~ of <br />the diversion demand. <br /> <br />2315 <br /> <br />26 <br />