Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, ..fI, t,., <~ <br />l'i;'; " <br /> <br />from irrigation to municipal and industljal purposes. <br />,.- <br /> <br />After analyzing the issues that were requested to be reviewed, Reclamation determined the <br /> <br />following issues should be reviewed: <br /> <br />e)'I.. /1. Review the water supply impacts of the allocation of the excess storage capacity <br /> <br />to the fishing or recreation pool and provide for filling and maintaining the pool; <br /> <br />v' 2. Release and delivery of stock water during the non-irrigation season; <br /> <br />y3. Identify and designate the Districts' irrigable lands; <br />(4. Hydrologic Operations <br /> <br />V 5. Other issues reviewed: determination of canal and lateral losses and irrigation <br /> <br />requirements; Trinidad's change of use of Project water rights; and conditions (d) and (e) <br /> <br />ofH. D. No, 325. <br />v( Review recommendations of the previous review and include applicable <br /> <br />recommendations in this review. <br /> <br />--~~,,::,~~.--,~::;-.,. . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.6, Methodology <br /> <br />The District and Kansas requested the review pe conducted using the same methodology <br /> <br />as used in the pmvioll< fI"vjem,.- The District requested that the review include the Colorado water <br />,- <br /> <br />years 1985 through 1994 while ~sas requested the revif'w period should include all ColoradQ, <br /> <br />water years ITOm the beginning of Project operations in 1.979 to present which would have been <br />- <br /> <br />through October 31, 1995. Since Reclamation used a simulation model which duplicated the pre- <br /> <br />Project planning model to perform the previous review, the District requested the model be <br /> <br />expanded to include the additional data and make identical comparisons as the previous review, <br /> <br />9 <br />