OCR Text |
Show 160 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS On October 11, 1967, the Regional Solicitor provided the Deputy Solicitor with his analysis of the States claims and noted the problems posed by the different interpretations of the Decree used by the States. For example, California asserted for "the defined areas of land" the entire area within the boundaries of the irrigation districts which, in the case of Imperial, was 905,559 acres in 1956 or more than double the 424,000 acres irrigated pre-1929, and in the case of Palo Verde, was 104,000 acres in 1964 or more than triple the 32,523 net acres irrigated pre-1929. By contrast, the PPR claims of the United States for the Federal reclamation projects specified the precise number of acres of land within the boundaries of each project which had in fact been irrigated pre-1929 and not the total number of acres within the projects. The United States had assumed that the irrigation districts PPR claims would be limited by reference to the acreage irrigated rather than district boundaries. The district-wide approach used by California for the Imperial and Palo Verde Irrigation Districts was not used for the Bard Unit, whose claim was limited to the owners of individual entries and areas. The same "district" approach was used for the California miscellaneous claims with incongruous results; e.g., 273 acre-feet for 10,880 acres of land owned by the A. T. and S. F. Railway. Further, Reclamation could accept only 2,873 acre-feet of California's 4,146 acre-feet of claims. California also used a consumptive use water figure for Imperial Irrigation District based on the full calendar year 1929, its calendar year of highest water use, even though the Decree had a June 25, 1929, cutoff date. Palo Verde used calendar year 1925, its calendar year of highest use. In contrast, the United States averaged the water use over a 5-year period which, if done by California, would have produced claims for lesser water quantities than were listed, as would the use of the 12 months period from July 1, 1929, through June 30, 1929, for Imperial Irrigation District. An analysis of each of these claims follows. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM OF PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHT FOR IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT Difference Between IID Diversions Claim of PPR Diversions for IID for CY 1929 12 Mo. Periods at Rock- (Less and Each 12 July thru June wood Gate Deliveries Deliveries Mo. Period 1924 thru 1929 for IID1 to Mexico* to Mexico) Shown July 1924-June 1925 3,001,500 695,543 2,305,957 (-500,043) July 1925-June 1926 3,179,300 704,795 2,474,505 (-331,495) July 1926-June 1927 3,033,310 629,425 2,403,885 (-402,115) July 1927-June 1928 3,189,500 638,793 2,550,707 (-255,293) July 1928-June 1929 3,332,500 678,434 2,654,066 (-151,934) 3 Year Average 3,185,103 648,884 2,536,219 (-269,781) 5 Year Average 3,147,222 669,398 2,477,824 (-328,176) Jan. 1929-Dec. 1929 3,424,000 618,000 2,806,000 (IID claim of PPR based on full calendar year 1929) 'Source - Geol. Surv. Water Supply Paper 1049, pp. 63-69 ¦Source - Intl. Bound. Comm. Letter to Reg. Dir. B. of R. 6-25-51 |