OCR Text |
Show 127 land.65 These figures depend upon engineering estimates, and are adjusted for certain omissions.66 No testimony supports the proposed consumptive use figure of 3.76 acre-feet per acre. Even assuming the consumptive use figure of 3.76 acre-feet per acre to be correct, it does not purport to measure consumptive use in terms of diversions less return flow to the mainstream. Therefore the Arizona figures are given in terms of gross diversions. Approximate Diversions of Mainstream Water in Arizona Amount User (Acre-Fee) Tear Yuma Project-Valley Division 1 ,,a 1 ,n Yuma Auxiliary Project (Unit B)67J 00U>1<3U Gila Project08 (plus deliveries to Special use and Warren Act contractors)69 .................... 578,860 1955 City of Yuma'0.................. 7,650 1955 Colorado River Indian Reservation71 322,500 1955 Total .................. 1,239,140 66See Calif. Proposed Finding 4D:108, note 5. 66 See Calif. Proposed Finding 4D:106, notes 3-4. 67Ariz. Ex. 186. «9Tr. 2611 (Steenbergen). 70Ariz. Ex. 190, table 1. 71U. S. Ex. 575. This exhibit contains an incomplete statement of return flow in the amount of 119,600 acre-feet. Thus, maximum consumptive use would be 202,900 acre-feet. Irrigation from the mainstream on the other two Indian reservations in Arizona, Ft. Mohave and Cocopah, is negligible. U. S. Ex. 1319 shows only 23 acres irrigated on the Ft. Mohave Reservation. For the Cocopah Reservation, U. S. Ex. 1009 shows a computed diversion requirement of 1,890 acre-feet for net irrigated acreage of 300 acres. It does not appear from the evidence when, if ever, this amount of mainstream water was actually applied to the land. See Tr. 14483; 14505-14506; 14508 (Criddle). |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial 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 |