OCR Text |
Show PROBLEMS OF IMPERIAL VALLEY AND VICINITY. 105 Blacks Fork: Acres. Uinta Nos. 2 and 3 (Carey Act list 10-70)............................. 22,000 Individual efforts.................................................. 29,000 Total............................................................ 51,000 Henrys Fork: Individual efforts........................................ 12,000 Grand total...................................................... 441,000 The total irrigable acreage not now irrigated is much larger but is included in unfinished projects. In the above the last item, "Individual efforts," is an arbitrary assumption. There is a constant increase in irrigated land through individual effort in building additional small ditches, but there is no way of arriving at the total of this in advance, particularly on the tributaries of Blacks Fork and on Henrys Fork, where there are no known reservoirs, and such extensions can expect water only in the first half of the irrigation season. Classification of projects. Class A. Class B. Class C. Class X. Above Green River city: Fontanelle.................. La Barge.................... Umta-Fremont.............. Apex........................ Seedskadee.................. Big Piney- La Barge........ Green River................. Individual efforts........... Hams Fork, Opal.....;......... Blacks Fork: Uinta Nos. 2 and 3.......... Individual efforts........... Henrys Fork, individual efforts. 3,000 11,000 4,000 4,000 6,000 146,000 94,000 50,000 22,000 60,000 29,000 12,000 96,000 98,000 146,000 101,000 Note.-All proposed Carey act projects above Green River city, except Green River, are plaod in class A because assumed that tracts most easily irrigated were first surveyed under this act. There is no definite information at hand. Green River Carey act is placed in B because of difficult canal and shallow soil. Seedskadee placed in class C because if Green River Carey act built first storage must be provided at reser voirs of uncertain feasibility and because canal construction difficult. IRRIGATION POSSIBILITIES. In considering irrigation possibilities it was found that the areas covered by surveys exceed the water supply. Therefore, it was necessary to- (1) Estimate the depletion in water supply caused by development above gaging station during the period of run-off record because if the same cycle repeated the water passing would be less. (2) Estimate the acreage not yet irrigated and the water supply for partially developed Carey Act projects to get future demands in supply by existing rights partially developed. (3) Estimate the acreage in Carey Act projects having a water right but not constructed. (4) Assume an acreage which will be developed under individual filings probably before some of the larger projects outlined. These four items are assumed to constitute a prior demand on the water supply. If the assumptions are wrong as to acreage of these items it makes no difference in the ultimate total because more or |
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] : |