| OCR Text |
Show David Pitcher, P. E., Chief Engineer Central Utah Water Conservancy District May 21, 1997 Page 3 SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1.2 Study Objectives and Purpose ( p. 2) " The ability to estimate how much water the major reservoir projects may be able to store and release from storage" is questionable, particularly if the water allocation process provided for in the Operating Agreement and/ or provisions for June sucker flows have not been modeled into PROSIM. 1.3.3 Modeled Processes ( p. 5) Water Rights ( p. 6) " Equalized allocation during times of shortage" needs clarification. 2.4 Provo River Water Rights Analysis ( p. 14) It appears that the " institutional arrangements" do not include the Operating Agreement and, if so, the water rights analysis of the Provo River drainage is flawed. 2.4.3 Analysis of Institutional Arrangements ( p. 16) The institutional arrangements listed therein do not include the Operating Agreement, which should be a cornerstone of PROSIM. The summary of how PROSIM implements the primary Weber- Provo transbasin diversion rights in the table in the appendix needs amendment. As to A9568, the diversion rate is limited to 150 cfs through the Weber- Provo Diversion Canal and only when the irrigation season begins on the Weber side. ( See Water Right al5038). 2.6.3 Model Calibration ( p. 19) In the last paragraph on page 20, the " Strawberry/ Deer Creek Exchange" should be amended to read " Deer Creek/ Strawberry Exchange". |
