Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />July 15, 1969 <br />Sheet 2 o~ 2 <br /> <br />Table 2 (continued) <br /> <br />(1,000 acre-~eet) <br />1980- 1983- 2001- <br />1222. .!21.Q. .!2.ll. .!2R 1973 .!ll!!. l2I2. .!21& ~ ~ .!2l2. 1982 ~ 2030 <br /> <br />IIIlperial to Boundary <br /> <br />Historic Losses/Gains 1/ <br />Adjustment ~or estimAted de- <br />pletions in other areas 3/ <br />Adjustment ~or unmeasured - <br />return novs 6/ <br />Sa1 'f'&lle by: !i/ - <br />Phreatopbyte Eradication <br />ChaDnelhation <br />Ground-Water Recovery 1/ <br />Future Losses/Gains <br />(Il) denotes gain <br /> <br />Excess Delivery to Mexico ~ <br /> <br />Total Net Lose <br /> <br />91(1l) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) 91(g) <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />91(_ <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br />80 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />o 0 <br />85 85 <br />464 470 <br /> <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />000 <br />85 85 85 <br />441 449 438 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />o <br />3 <br /> <br />10 <br />23 <br /> <br />10 <br />23 <br /> <br />10 <br />20 <br /> <br />10 <br />20 <br /> <br />o <br />20 <br /> <br />5 <br />20 <br /> <br />10 <br />20 <br /> <br />10 <br />20 <br /> <br />3(g) 20(g) 25(g) 30(g) 30(g) 30(g) 30(g) 33(g) 33(g) <br />85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 <br />425 399 350 335 263 263 263 245 245 <br /> <br />1I Historic average 1963-1968 losses or gain.. <br />y <br /> <br />See Table 2a. <br /> <br />. <br />1929-1968 ayerage o~ 85,000 acre-~eet per year, reauced b7 an e.timated 20,000 acre-~eet per year ~or operation <br />o~ Alamo J>sm. <br /> <br />J.! Assumes that net depletion. by lD1.cellalleous user. (exclusive o~ MAl) are 70 percent of diverdon.. <br /> <br />~ USBR salY8lle progr8lll remaining to be acccapl1shed. <br /> <br />21 Assumes increased riyer loss due to change in consumptiye use on Colorado River Indian Reservation due to <br />development. <br /> <br />~ Assumes that current net dyer gains, lIIIperia1 DsIIl to Northerly Boundary, are assigned as increased return <br />~lovs from irrigation operations. <br /> <br />l! Future ground-water recovery is considered as additional return flow frOlll YUIIl& area project. in Arizona <br />which has no ef~ect on future 10sses in this reach of the river. <br /> <br />~ Includes about 60,000 acre-feet resulting frOlll operation UDder Minute 218, Mexican Treaty. <br />