OCR Text |
Show -5- Silt: USBR Planning Report, January 1951, No. 4-8a.6-2: Cols. (3) & (4), p. 35, note 1.9 new irrigation, 5.4 supplemental; Cols. (5), (6) & (7), insufficient data; Cols. (8), (11), p. 23; Col. (12) = (11) -r- (8); Col. (13), p. 23; Col. (14) = (13) -f- (8); Col. (15), p. 23; Col. (16) = (15) ~ (8); Col. (17) = (13) - (15); Col. (18) = (17) -s- (13). Smith Fork: USBR Planning Report, February 1951, No. 4-8a.68-0: Cols. (3) & (4), p. 32, note 2.3 new irrigation, 8.1 supplemental; Cols. (5), (6) & (7), insufficient data; Cols. (8), (11), (12), (13), (14) & (15), p. 21; Col. (16) = (15) +- (8); Cols. (17) & (18), p. 21. Pine River Extension: USBR Planning Report, January 1951, No. 4-8a.31-l: Cols. (3) & (4), p. 9; Cols. (5), (6) & (7), insufficient data; Col. (8), p. 8; Cols. (9), (10), (11), (12), (13) & (14), insufficient data; Col. (15), computed from summary sheet listing net depletion as 28,300; Col. (16) = (15) -r- (8); Cols. (17) & (18), insufficient data. Hammond: USBR Planning Report, November 1950, No. 4-8a.22-2: Cols. (3) & (4), p. 2; Cols. (5), (6) & (7), computed from pp. 2 & 3; Col. (8), p. 3; Cols. (9), (10), (11), (12), (13) & (14), insufficient data; Col. (15), computed from summary listing net depletion as 7,900; Col. (16) = (15) -r- (8); Cols. (17) & (18), insufficient data. |
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] : |