small inconsistency in accounting for capac residual?

@rdkoster:
Near the end of subroutine catchment(), we compute (total) RUNOFF as the sum of surface runoff and baseflow:
https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/GEOSgcm_GridComp/blob/d21d47891784743ea5db368ac8faed53de52c7af/GEOSagcm_GridComp/GEOSphysics_GridComp/GEOSsurface_GridComp/GEOSland_GridComp/GEOScatch_GridComp/catchment.F90#L1271
Immediately thereafter, we check for negligible amounts of CAPAC (<1e-10) and convert them into (total) RUNOFF:
https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/GEOSgcm_GridComp/blob/d21d47891784743ea5db368ac8faed53de52c7af/GEOSagcm_GridComp/GEOSphysics_GridComp/GEOSsurface_GridComp/GEOSland_GridComp/GEOScatch_GridComp/catchment.F90#L1273
Don't we also need to add CAPAC(N)/DTSTEP to RUNSRF (or, alternatively, to BFLOW) so as to maintain consistency with (total) RUNOFF?
The water amounts involved are probably so small that in practice nobody ever notices. But we go to the trouble of accounting for them in RUNOFF, so maybe it's worth to also adjust the runoff components for consistency.
Please advise, thanks

PS: Here's the full block of code for reference (lines 1271-1275 in today's version of the "develop" branch)

        RUNOFF(N) = RUNSRF(N)+BFLOW(N)
        IF(CAPAC(N).LT.1.E-10) THEN
           RUNOFF(N) = RUNOFF(N)+CAPAC(N)/DTSTEP
           CAPAC(N) = 0.0
           endif

cc: @biljanaorescanin

Start by reading GEOScatch_GridComp/catchment.F90 in subroutine catchment() around lines 1271-1275, tracing how RUNOFF, RUNSRF, BFLOW, CAPAC, and DTSTEP are accounted for. Done means the negligible CAPAC conversion leaves total RUNOFF consistent with its runoff components.