OCR Text |
Show Record This figure that is quoted for the San Juan of 60,000,000 3819 tons was based on a mathematical average of 1.6, and that figure was a little lower than was obtained by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1915 and 1916, over a period of a year. So that I thought I was using a conservative figure if I used that for my yearly basis. I realized that I was using a figure for a period in which I had no samples, but I set my figures alongside other figures, and I believed the figures were too high, and therefore I could get a conservative estimate. That figure is the poorest one I gave you, because it is based on too few samples, the 1.6 percentage, which means in every one ton of river matter there is 1.6 percent of suspended matter. Samuel Kenneth Love testified for complainant on direct 3820 examination as follows: I live in Washington, D. C. I am a chemist. I graduated 3821 the University of Florida in 1927. I joined the United States Geological Survey in June, 1928. I have had experience with the San Juan River in the field I have had no experience with the Green and Colorado Rivers except the examination of water samples for the purpose of determining the amount of silt. I was on the San Juan River from July 10 to September 21, 1929, at the Goodridge Gaging Station, about 25 miles below Bluff. My work consisted of making observations as to the amount of silt 3822 carried. I took usually about 10 to 12 samples a day. I took the samples in pint milk bottles similar to the method which Mr. Howard described. In practically all cases the sample was taken in such a way that the milk bottle was not quite full when it reach- 3823 ed the surface of the water. Thus, if there was a great excess of sediment in the river at the time, it would not have a chance to drop in there after the sampler was full to the top. During the times I was at that station I observed two or three periods of high water which I would term floods. On 548 |