BOARD02033

• Board Meeting Date: 5/8/1963
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

J438

(b) In lieu of the report above referred
to, this Committee recommends consid-
eration of a bypass drainage channel.
This bypass drainage channel should be
operated in the following manner:

(1) It should bypass only the quantity
reaching the limitrophe section in
excess of 900 c.f.s. during the
winter months.

I

(2) It should bypass only the poorest
quality of water pumped. (That
is, by selective pumping).

(3) To the extent practicable, the
water table should be drawn down
to minimize the total summer
pumping.

(4) The construction and operation of
these works must be done at the
expense of the united states which
must exercise unilateral control
over the entire project. The
united states must retain absolute
control of the determination as
to when the use of the bypass
channel should be terminated.

(5) Bypassed waters should be accounted
for as t'lellton-Mohawk return flows
as contemplated by the provisions
of Public Law 272 and the proposed
report of the Master in the case
of Arizona vs. California.'

I'd like to digress a little here and explain
this paragraph to those of you who are not fa-. I
miliar with these provisions. Public Law 272 is
the authorizing legislation for the Wellton-
Mohawk project and it limits their consumptive '
use to 300,000 acre-feet per year and the acre-
age of the project to 75,000 acres. The Master
in the proposed report on Arizona vs. California
followed this and recommended that the Well ton-
Mohawk Project be limited to 300,000 acre-feet