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 />are reflected entirely on the California needs. VV ithout a compact between <br />the lower basin States I do not think anyone can designate just which State <br />will suffer the most. I cannot myself, and I have tried. But the lower <br />basin will be hurt, and hurt badly, and that hurt will not be confined to <br />the lower basin. <br />"It takes a lot of engineering and arithmetic to show it, and a lot <br />more time than you want to use here, but the Colorado River contracts <br />in the lower basin and important water rights in the upper basin are put <br />in jeopardy by this treaty." <br /> <br />Mr. Elder disagreed with the estimates of water used in Mexico as put fOf'lh by <br /> <br />the State Department, however, he did not introduce different figures. Senator Downey <br /> <br />and Senator McFarland entered inlo a lengthy discussion with Mr. Elder regarding <br /> <br />quality of water. Following that discussion Senator Downey, 'It page 479, asked: <br /> <br />"Senator DOWNEf. How much do you think we people in the South- <br />west may safely rely upon, in figuring this treaty, as to the return flow <br />from the Phoenix area? <br />"Mr. ELDER. 'Veil, considering these other items as preliminary <br />to that answer, the Gila proj ect, as I recall it, had an estimate of about <br />400,000 acre-feet re'lurn How. You might remember that yourself, Senator <br />McFarland. But it wus in ,hat neighborhood. How, I think the unit amount <br />was 2 1/2 acre-feet per acre. That was to be ussumed as return flow, <br />because the soil is very Sundy and gravelly. That is correct--that classi- <br />fication of soil--but ii the soil is that sandy, it IS my opinion that the <br />water will be expensive e~lOugh to justify lining the canals and ditches. <br />If water goes to central Arizona, involving pump lifts up to 650 feet, <br />which is not common for irriqate_d.Jireas ,~s_anY:Qne.Jwm_the_WesLknows-- <br />if water is pumped to those limits, it becomes so costly you just cannot <br />build your pumps big enough and economicai enough to pump water merely <br />to waste it and let it run down for somebody else to get the benefit of iL. <br />You plan for smaller pumps and put the money instead into lined canals <br />and even lined ditches; and in Ca lifornia on sandy areas, we pipe water <br />to the base of each tree and build a little levee around the foot of each tree <br />to hold every drop of it. <br />"I think when planning that project for immediate consideration they <br />would have to revise that diversion duty figure arU cut it down from 6 <br />acre-feet per acre to perhaps a figure we formerly used for planning there <br />of 4 1/2 acre-feet per acre. But that would involve the lining of ditches <br />and much greater care on the part of farmers in preventing waste, but the <br />immediate effect 01 those tactics would be to cut this return flow down in <br />that case by possibly half or more. <br /> <br />-33- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.