My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10867
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10867
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:15:02 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:34:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8278.400
Description
Title I - Mexican Treaty
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
3/1/1962
Author
IBWC
Title
Mexican Water Treaty -Appendix E -Water Supply
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />land. It is anticipated that diversion for the balance of the <br />proj ect will probably be at the rate of about 5 acre-feet per <br />acre. In my opinion return flow from the Jatter units of the <br />project will be recovered to an extent such that consumptive <br />use on that portion of 'the proj ect will be around 3 acre-feet <br />per acre. <br />'In the case of 'the first unit, however, the return will <br />not be recoverable for use within the United States excepting <br />only as a small part thereof may become available for the <br />future uses for Yuma Valley, and consequently it will probably <br />be in order to make some revisions in the estimated areas <br />to be developed or in the amounts of water 'lO be utilized.' <br />"Now, that is my authority for the diversion demand, and Mr. Riter, <br />who will follow me, is wiLh the Bureau of Reclamation and will support <br />this. In other words, I fete as you did, Senator, particularly from the <br />fact that the water must be pumped, that the diversion would be held <br />at as low a quantity as possible. However, the Bureau of Reclamation <br />engineers are intimately familiar with the area, they had had long <br />experience in matters of this kind and I am relying on their conclusion. <br />"Senator McFARLAND. Now, as to the 240,000 acre-feet of water <br />returned, that will be pretty good water, will it not? <br />"Mr. TIPTON. That is correct. <br />"Senator McFARLAND. That is, that would be reusable, except <br />for the fact that it goes ilTtO the stream too low to be used? <br />"Mr. TIPTON. That is correct, sir. Some of il still could be <br />pumped to the All-American Canal. <br />* * * <br /> <br />"Mr. TIPTON. . . <br />"To clear up just onc question, I have been explaining one assumed <br />condition of development in Arizona, which is not the one which formed <br />the basis of Mr. Lowry's testimony. <br />"The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead on your return flow. <br />"Mr. TIPTON. Yes, sir. Now, getting bacJ~ to Senator McFarland's <br />question again, the next itcm, the estimated return from the Phoenix <br />area, is 406,000 acre-feet. Adding those up makes the 806,000 acre- <br />feet of return flow. That docs not include de silting water. <br />"Senator McFARLAND. 406,000 acre-feet? <br />"Mr. TIPTON. Yes, sir. <br />"Senator McFARLAND. That is the one I may be wanting to quarrel <br />with you on. <br />"Mr. TIPTON. Now, before you start quarrcling, I will make my <br />explanation; then, if we have any quarrel-- <br />"Senator McFARLAND. You in a way cut me out of this 380,000 <br />because you havc not gOt a chance of reusing il. <br /> <br />-20- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.