Closed alanccai closed 4 years ago
This is interesting. I'm not sure why it wasn't originally included (there is a long, 10+ year history with the catchment definitions). Here's my own interpretation of how this would look. I think this will be either a perpetually open issue, or one that we definitely close. The rational for not including Warm Creek is that the volume is probably well within the noise of model uncertainty.
Your drawing looks good.
I think you may be right about "Within the noise of model uncertainty"
Actually, we're good, and already include Warm Creek: the gauge (and diversion) are already in the TAE subwatershed, so all of that flow above the diversion are already going into TAE. So actually we have the opposite problem: none of that upper Warm Creek water flows into the SF San Joaquin. However, since this is typically less than 0.5 cfs, this is not going to significantly affect the model.
Warm Creek is not a part of the network. The schematic says it's a tributary of the SFSJR
See: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/waterdata/Schematics2010/s.joaquin.up.r.basin.pdf