My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7367
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7367
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:32:56 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 3:27:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7367
Author
Nathanson, M. N.
Title
Updating the Hoover Dam Documents.
USFW Year
1978.
USFW - Doc Type
Denver, Colorado.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 />2 <br /> <br />UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS <br /> <br />A.2 Water Supply <br /> <br />The unregulated flow of the river, uneven and unpredictable, varies widely during the year, from year to <br />year, and over long periods of years. Water supply studies of virgin or undepleted flow at Lee Ferry show a <br />maximum of 24 million acre-feet per year (maflyr) in 1924 and a low flow of 5.5 maf in 1977. The long-term <br />average virgin flow of the river at Lee Ferry, from the turn of the century to the present, averages <br />14.7 maflyr. However, the bulk of the high flow occurred during the early part of this century so that the <br />average virgin flow from 1896 to 1930, a "wet" period, was about 17 maflyr whereas the average virgin flow <br />from 1930 to the present time, a "dry" period, was about 13 maf/yr. The lO-year wettest period saw an <br />average annual virgin flow of 18.8 maf in 1914-1923. The driest 10 years saw an average annual flow of <br />11.8 maf. <br />Since more accurate measurements of the flow at Lee Ferry were commenced in 1922: the flows have <br />averaged about 14 maf/yr. This range of flows is significant. For example, the Compact negotiators in 1922 <br />divided what was thought to be a water supply of 16 maflyr between the Upper and Lower Basins on the <br />assumption that the flows were in excess of that amount. Since 1922 estimates of the river's flow have stead- <br />ily been revised downward to approximately 14 mal. The lower average river flows; Le., a shrinking supply <br />coupled with an increasing demand, have contributed greatly to the water problems that arose in later years <br />(see Appendix 1 A. 2 for Bar Chart of Water Supply). <br /> <br />A.3 Early River Development <br /> <br />In the late 1800's developers in the Imperial Valley of California devised plans to divert water from the <br />Colorado River and to irrigate Imperial Valley lands by gravity flow. Diversion works were completed in 1901 <br />for that purpose as a private undertaking. In 1903 80,000 acres were irrigated and in 1920 there were <br />400,000 irrigated acres. Today there are 500,000 irrigated acres. <br />Following notices of appropriations filed in 1877 by Thomas Blythe, diversion works were also begun by <br />private developers in the Palo Verde Valley in California. Private canal companies also began irrigation in <br />Arizona as early as 1890 in the Yuma Valley and in 1905 in the North Gila Valley. <br />After the passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902, investigations were started to determine the feasibility of <br />large, Federal irrigation projects. The Yuma Reclamation Project in Arizona and California was authorized in <br />1904 and the first Colorado River water was delivered to it in 1907. By 1920, irrigation works constructed <br />primarily by private enterprise, especially in the Imperial and Palo Verde Valleys of California, had expanded <br />to such an extent that the unregulated flow of the Colorado River was completely utilized during periods of <br />low flow so that further expansion was dependent upon construction of storage reservoirs on the river. <br />The erratic flows of the river, its tendency to destructive flooding and its high silt load limited its usefulness <br />for a dependable year-round water supply without some flood control and storage facilities, both of which <br />were beyond the means of local entities and the States. Before construction of Hoover Dam, which was com- <br />pleted in 1935, the lower reaches of the Colorado River were subjected to severe annual floods. This menace <br />was fully realized in 1905 when the Colorado River, swollen by floodwaters, broke through a cut several <br />miles below the International Boundary, which had been made by the early developers of the Imperial Valley <br />in California. For 16 months it flowed into the fields of the Imperial Valley enlarging the Salton Sea, approx- <br />imately 490 square miles in area,. and threatened to engulf the entire valley. The break was finally closed <br />largely through the efforts of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company but only after 30,000 acres of arable <br />land had been inundated, farms ruined, homes destroyed, highways washed away, and railroad tracks <br />destroyed. This tragic occurrence, indicating the need for flood control of the lower Colorado River, became <br />a motivating reason for the construction of Hoover Dam. That, plus problems in maintenance of the distribu- <br />tion facilities to Imperial Valley because its diversions of water were through facilities in Mexico, led to <br />demands for a canal within the United States. <br />In 1901 the Davis and Lippincott Report recommended studies of two major projects which actually <br />materialized in the Boulder Canyon Project Act, a storage dam at the Boulder Canyon site and a canal from <br />the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley in California. <br /> <br />p:;i ;'r; <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.