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 />" <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />feet per year from this 21 miles of canal be'cween the head of Pilot <br /> <br />Knob, which will return to the Colorado River. <br />* * * <br /> <br />"Mr. RITER. Then, in summary, the quantities of return flow <br />are as follows: From the Yuma project 135,000 acre-feet; from the <br />Gila project, 400,000 acre-feet; from central Arizona, 330,000 acre- <br />feet, and seepage losses from the All-American Canal, 65,000 acre- <br />feet; and that results in a total return flow of 930,000 acre-feet." <br /> <br />Clay C. Elder, an engineer horn Los Angeles, was lead-off man as far as <br /> <br />technical opposition was concerned. Mr. Elder recognized that the streamflow <br /> <br />data based on gaging station records as presented by the proponents was acceptable. <br /> <br />He did question the use of average figures as shown by his statement on pages 462 <br /> <br />and463. <br /> <br />"After working up these statistics, we have what we call the long- <br />time average. That was put into the record in good shape by the State <br />Department witnesses. Questions were asked, as to shorter periods, <br />short-time critical periods, 10- or il-year shorlages that occur and <br />really affect the storage reservoirs. The State Department seemed <br />totally unaware of the [act that those critical periods are the major factor <br />in Colorado River water supply. They passed the buck, perhaps wisely, <br />to the Bureau of Reclamation. I know personally that the Bureau of Recla- <br />mation is familiar with that matter. <br />"Between 1897 and 190'! a very serious drought occurred, and <br />we made Boulder Dam large enough to fit that period. The studies <br />of 1922 to 1930 had a certain accuracy. But before the dam was r.e.-911y: <br />in operation the worst drought had occurred., 1930 to 1940, and that is <br />now the critical period for all the water-supply studies of the river. <br />We now have to fit our expectations to thaI. supply. <br />"At the time the contracts were made, about 1930, the river records <br />indicated that the expected quantity of water below Boulder Dam in the <br />future, as of about 1980, vvas possibly an average of 10,500,000 acre- <br />feet. <br />"Now the Bureau of Reclamation has determined, and fairly con- <br />servatively, that 8 1/2 million acre-feet is all we can expect to ha ve <br />released from Boulder Dam if a period like 1930 recurs, 30 or 40 years <br />from now. <br />"VJhen the upper basin is fairly well developed, I think it only <br />requires a development of the upper basin of about 80 percent to <br />diminish average releases from Boulder Dam, and also Davis Dam <br /> <br />-31- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.