Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />14'54 <br /> <br />p~esent1y i~~igated lands on ute Mountain Ute Indian lands. W. W. <br />Wheele~'~ Associates, Inc., hyd~ology consultant, identified f~om <br />aerial photographs and other information available to them the lands <br />presently irrigated and provided to Boyle a marked p~int of the base <br />map. The amount of irrigated acreage was then planimetered from the <br />base map and tabulated. It should be noted that presently irrigated <br />land covers some land not classified and Class 6 (non-irrigable) <br />soils as determined by Stoneman-Landers, soil consultants. <br /> <br />For the remaining irrigable parcels, an analysis was made to <br /> <br />determine the residual water payment capacity when only the off-farm <br />static pumping lift costs where added to the on-farm costs identified <br />in Task B. Based on the elevation of the nearest water supply and the <br />elevation of the highest point in each pa~cel, the static lift to <br />serve the parcel was calculated using the computer program developed <br /> <br /> <br />for the Task B ~eport. The power cost to lift the annual water <br /> <br /> <br />requirement to each field was then calculated assuming a 75 percent <br /> <br /> <br />pumping plant efficiency which is a conservatively high assumption: <br /> <br /> <br />and a field delive~y pressure of 60 psi fo~ all but gravity irrigated <br /> <br /> <br />fields. <br /> <br />It should be noted that the parcel water payment capacity ~esidual <br /> <br /> <br />analysis (Appendix D.l) was slightly modified from the analysis <br /> <br /> <br />presented in the Task B draft ~eport. Land leveling costs for <br /> <br /> <br />gravity ir~igated fields were not included in the Task B on-fa~m <br /> <br /> <br />costs. The Task B repo~t, however, estimated land leveling <br /> <br />3 <br />