Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />e <br /> <br />diversions into the Johns Flood Ditch have been measured at a staff <br />in the ditch and at the Parshall flume in the Model Intake Canal. <br />gage <br />In order to detenmine how much water has been diverted on the <br />water rights owned by MLI and JFD during the 1950 through 1976 study <br />period, it was necessary to determine the water diverted on each priority <br />. the Johns Flood Ditch. In assigning the amount of water diverted under <br />In <br />each priority, it was assumed that water was diverted strictly in order <br />or priority. For example, if the diversion in the ditch equaled 10.0 cfs <br />on a particular daYt the water was allocated thus: 4.0 cfs on Priority <br />No.5; 1.28 cfs on Priority No.9; 1.25 cfs on Priority No. 13; and <br />3.48 cfs on Priority No. 15. According to Charles Wilk~nsont Superintendent <br />or MLI, diversions in the Johns Flood Ditch are administered according to <br />the priority sys.temt in so far as it is practical to do so. An effort <br />is also made to insure that water is divided on a per share basis among <br />the stockholders in the JFD. <br />The diversions on each of the water rights in the Johns Flood Ditch <br />were prorated to reflect only those diversions made on water rights owned <br />by MLI or on the MLI share. of JFD diversions. The MLI diversions by <br />priority are shown in Tables X-A through X-G. Table XI shows a summary <br />or the MLJ share of diversions. By comparing Tables IX an~ XI it can be <br />shown that MLJ diversions amount to 55 percent (4044/7340) of the total <br />Johns Flood Ditch diversions. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />