OCR Text |
Show 148 PROBLEMS OF IMPERIAL. VALLEY AND VICINITY. power in small quantities may be developed on the headwaters of the Dolores River system without interference with irrigation and that power can not be developed on the main rivers at reasonable cost without unwarranted interference with irrigation. IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT TO DATE. With all streams entering rapidly deepening narrow canyons close to their sources at high altitudes, individual development has been largely precluded, and the acreage attributable thereto is negligible. Both the Dolores and San Miguel rivers receive their suoply from a large number of small streams, none of which carries sufficient water for any extensive area. Developments on the San Miguel drainage area usually have the alternative of a long canal intercepting a number of tributaries, or an equally long or longer canal through difficult country from the main river. The former in every case requires storage as the smaller streams lack late summer water, while diversions from the main stream though expensive usually require little storage. In either case construction costs can be brought within feasible limits only by the inclusion of moderately large areas, requiring an initial investment of an amount not readily obtainable for a district so unfavorably situated. Many projects have, therefore, been initiated and in many cases considerable sums spent for construction but none has been completed. In the Dolores River drainage the lack of cheap storage facilities in the headwaters and extremely rough topography along the main stream preclude development from the mam stream except by diversion to the San Juan drainage basin, where 25,000 acres have been developed on the Montezuma project. The lack of late summer flow on tributaries of the Dolores has kept developments on them to a minimum. The present irrigated areas are as follows: Irrigated areas. Canal system. Water supply. Reservoirs. Area irrigated. SAN MIGUEL DRAINAGE. Gurley'and Cone......... San Miguel............... Beaver Creek................................... .....do.......................................... Cone, GuriBy__ None....... A ores. 10,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 • 7,00O Lilylands................. Nucla Colony......:.„... Scattered................. Naturita Creek..... ...do San Miguel River...........>................... ___do. Horsefly, Tabeguache, and Headwater tributaries. Disappointment Creek......................... .....do.......... None............ 24,000 DOLORES DRAINAGE. Disappointment.......... West Paradox............ Scattered................. Total present irrigated area. 2,000 3,000. 4,000 9,000 33,000 Paradox Creek.......,.......................... Buckeye, Geyser None___....... Various small creeks............................ |
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] : |