Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Jl],pO"T OF TIm REGIONAL DIRECTOR <br /> <br />reservoir feecter canals and diversion:] into these cclnr,ls would not be <br />permitted to deplete the flows of E'lacks Fork and \iest Fork of Smiths <br />Fork below 10 second-feet and 3 second-feet, respectively. <br /> <br />S. The Lyman project plan discussed herein was selected as the <br />most desi rab1e means for developing the area 'af'G61' careful consideration <br />of several alternative plans. A plan for developing ,llacks Fork Basin <br />in conjunction with the ad.join:Lng Henrys Fork Basin wa,s rejected for the <br />present because of opposition from local landowners. If the plan for <br />joint development should be adopted at a later date, however, the Lyman <br />project would operate in conjunction with it and would be a convenient <br />first step in its development., <br /> <br />"fater Hesources <br /> <br />9. Development of the project would depend on a much higher degree <br />of irrigation efficiency than is presently obtained in the area. The <br />present practice of excessively irrigating certain areas with spri~ <br />flood flows would hav" to be discontinued in order that the available <br />stream flow Could be regulated and more beneficially used over the entire <br />project area throughout thG growing season. The -improved irrigation <br />practices along with improved drainage would prevent ,~aste waters from <br />irrigatedlan:l s seeping to adjacent uncropped lands where they are now <br />lost through transpiration and eva,poration. As the water thus saved <br />would con~ensate for the increased consumption of water on cropped lands, <br />the project de'(elopment ,muld not result in further strGam deoletions. <br />