Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />["- <br />c <br />... <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />but, becuuse the cost of the development exceeds the ability of water <br />users to repay, could not be expected to result in a reasonably high <br />level of living for water users. <br /> <br />,"'*. <br />,.- <br /> <br />36. The Chino Valley Irrigation District now diverts water from- <br />Granite and Willow Creeks, which are .Qthin the Colorado River system. <br />As the development under consideration would not increase consumptive <br />uses materiully, its only purpose'being to salvage present seepage <br />losses for use on irrigated lands, the development 'NOuld have no appre- <br />ciable effect upon the wnter supply of the Colorado River basin. <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />37. The Chino Valley Irrigation District has experienced serious <br />water shortages since the beginning of the project over 30 years ago <br />because it is attempting-to irrigate more land than the water supply <br />will adequately irrigate. Many actions have been taken to increase <br />the water supply, but it is still inadequate for the 2,538 acres of <br />land under irrigation in the District. The District has accumulated <br />a heavy bonded indebtedness in attempting to solve its problems. <br /> <br />38. The most favorable of the three alternatives considered by <br />the Bureau of Reclamation for increasing the water-supply is to replace <br />the main canal, which has excessive seepage losses, with a 36-inch <br />concrete pipe. This development, however, 1~11 not result in a full <br />supply for the 2,538 acres under irrigation. <br /> <br />39. The cost of this development would be'about $133,600 which, <br />to repay without interest under Reclamation law, would require 40 <br />annuiLl instalments of ,~3,340 each, or $3,640 including investigc.tional <br />cost. The-annual cost of operution ~d maintenance, including the cost <br />of puraping, would be $8,800 which together .Qth the average annual bond <br />service of $6,000 would mDke a total annual cost to the district after <br />development of slightly over $18,400. <br /> <br />40. The annual amount the District could pay for ~_ter, "~thout <br />allowing credit for returns from tnc water furnished by the present <br />system, is estir.t:J.t(;d to be:,~13, 900. This =ount _-rould be much less <br />than the aTh~ual cost of the development. In fact, it is not suffi- <br />cient to pay the annual' cost of operation QI1d mointenQI1ce, pumping <br />and bond service of $14,800. <br /> <br />41. It must be concluded, therefore, th~t the Chino Valley <br />Irrigation District could not repay the Bureau of Recl~~~tion for <br />the development under considerQtion and pny the current costs of the <br />project. <br /> <br />Recent Operntions of the District <br /> <br />42. The Chino Valley Irrig~tion District h~s undert~ken to,rehn- <br />bilitate its irrigation fncilities substantinlly in accordance with <br />the plan proposed in this report and apparently intends to continue <br /> <br />8 <br />