OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER X 161 ANALYSIS OF CLAIM OF PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHT FOR PALO VERDE IRRIGATION IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12 Mo. Periods Jan 1925 thru June 19291 Diversions at Intake* Estimated Waste Water Net Diversions3 Difference between P.V. claim of PPR for CY 1925 and each 12 Mo. Period shown Jan. 1925-June 1925 118,290 10,780 107,510 July 1925-June 1926 214,050 19,180 194,870 (-13,230) July 1926-June 1927 205,910 19,640 186,270 (-21,830) July 1927-June 1928 200,760 22,400 178,360 (-29,830) July 1928-June 1929 175,860 20,940 154,920 (-53,180) 3 year average 173,153 (-34,947) 4V2 year average 182,631 (-25,469) Jan. 1925-Dec. 1925 225,700 17,600 208,100 (Palo Verde Claim of PPR Based on Full cal. yr 1925) 'Figures for second half 1924 not available. "Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1049, pp 33-34. *The figures for diversions at intake less wastewater returned to river are estimated by District and do not include drainage water returned to river. The Regional Solicitor also pointed out that the use of acreage figures for acres irrigated at any time in any year pre-1929, rather than the largest number of acres irrigated in a single 12-month period; i.e., the so-called "cumulative" approach, would only increase the acreages beyond the largest number of acres irrigated in any single year or in any 12-month period and also would increase the claimed water duty for the increased acreage. It was therefore urged that the cumulative approach be discarded as erroneous since the Regional Solicitor had used it initially in the July 1, 1965, data only for the purpose of exploring its validity and as a check on the other studies. Differences were also noted regarding Arizona's PPR claims. While using the acreage figures that Interior had developed and Justice had shown in its PPR listing, Arizona used different water figures for the Valley Division of the Yuma Project. More significant was Arizona's omission of "whichever is less" in the alternative or dual limitation formula used by the United States. The Regional Solicitor's analysis was critical of the use of pumped ground water as the basis of some of the miscellaneous claims and raised the question of their abandonment as well as other problem areas involving each of these claims. Further, it was pointed out that Reclamation could accept only 3,924 acre-feet out of Arizona's miscellaneous claims of 79,996 acre-feet. G.2. Meeting of October 31, 1967 At this meeting, Justice questioned California's priority dates for Imperial and Palo Verde Irrigation Districts but no progress was made on an agreement. However, California repeated its prior willingness to removal of the acreage references from the Indian Reservations' dual limitation. |