OCR Text |
Show PROBLEMS OF IMPERIAL, VALLEY AND VICINITY. 13 Table No. 13.-Summary of distribution of costs per acre, Imperial Valley. High-line canal. Power. Distribution-system. Total. Imperial district.................r......................... $36. 55 36.55 36.55 $3.98 2.21 4.40 $53. 57 21.67 $40.53 92.33 62.62 Extensions: United States . ........................... Mexico.................................,............ Table No. 14.-Allocation of costs to classes of lands in Imperial extensions. Private. Entered. Public. Indian. California. Southern Pacific R. R. Total. United States..... Mexico..... SI, 339,000 $1,420,000 $15,400,000 $1,062,000 $1,348,000 $1 359,000 $24,927,000 1,879,000 Total....... 26,806,000 Table No. 15.-Imperial Valley extension-Irrigable area [acres). Imperial Valley extension. Private. Entered. Public. Indian. California. Southern Pacific R. R. Total. Sast side mesa... 1,200 200 1,200 1,400 148,100 700 8,300 300 1,200 2,400 160,000 5,000 )os Palmas............. ^oachella Valley............... 12,100 3,400 3,800 11,400 4,400 36,900 72,000 Vest side....................... 10,000 9,300 14,300 100 1,600 6,700 33,000 United States lands 14,500 15,300 166,900 11,500 14,600 47,200 270,000 30,000 Mexican lands FLOOD PROTECTION AND IRRIGATION STORAGE BENEFITS. The distribution of benefits from water storage is perhaps the most complicated and difficult to determine and involves questions of law which it is neither possible nor desirable to determine at the present time. The Yuma project of the United States Reclamation Service claims an early valid right to the diversion of water, based upon an act of Congress (33 Stat., 224) authorizing the diversion of water for the Yuma project and including Indian lands. The Imperial irrigation district, on behalf of the lands within its boundaries, claims a right based upon filings under California laws. Similar claims are asserted by the Palo Verde irrigation district and some other tracts in the Colorado Valley, and which of these is to get preference is a matter of dispute depending perhaps in part upon various questions of fact which will require careful determination. The claim is asserted on behalf of the Indians of the Colorado River Indian Reservation to sufficient water for their lands, irrespective of prior appropriations. These claims in the aggregate are conflicting, but it is neither necessary nor desirable that they be now determined, nor is this possible in time for this report. A similar difficulty arises in allocating the benefits for flood protection, although in a broad sense the older lands having the best water rights are those most in need of flood protection. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |