OCR Text |
Show PROBLEMS OF IMPERIAL VALLEY AND VICINITY. Average annual, discharge. 137 Estimated annual discharge. Rock Creek average. Acre-feet demand (3.05 per acre). Shortage October to March. April............. May.............. June............. July.............. August........... September....... 21,000 4,000 15,000 32,000 7,000 3,500 3,500 3,000 14,000 19,000 19,000 14,000 3,000 12,000 10,500 500 Total. 86,000 72,000 23,000 Acre-feet. Storage required, average year.................................................................... 23,000 Storage which should be built..................................................................... 40,000 Reservoir.-Reservoir available of 40,000 acre-feet capacity. is Stillwater site on Rock Creek Summary of Duchesne JRiver. Irrigated, 1920. Unirri- gated but having rights. Additional possible. Total. Duchesne River: Below Myton................ Above Myton................ Above Castle Peak diversion. Rock Creek...................... Castle Peak project.............. 1,300 6,700 11,100 4,100 5,400 11,900 2,800 19,700 48,000 6,700 18,600 13,900 23,800 48,000 Total. 23,200 39,800 48,000 111,000 This does not contemplate so large a development comparatively as the other streams in the basin, but easily irrigated lands are not available. Summary of entire Uinta Basin. Irrigated, 1920. Additional possible. Total ultimate. Ashley Creek___ 30,000 30,000 78,000 10,000 71,000 TJinta-Whiterocks..................... 57,000 10,000 50,500 21,000 Dry Gulch...... Lake Fork............. 20,500 Duchesne River and tributaries....... 23,200 87,800 111,000 Total............................ 170,700 129,300 300,000 POWER. Because reservoirs are lacking for good regulation of the streams, development of power will be very limited. Some power has been developed, but information is lacking as to possibilities. Probably the headwaters with their precipitous slope offer opportunity for small plants. |
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] : |