WSPC03421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0;)2rl33 36 ASSEMBLY INTERIM'.COMMITTEE"ON WATER.. As is indicated in other sections of this report, the Colorado River Board and others are particularly critical of 'what they consider over- estimated amounts of potential water salvage. This difference is shown in the board's estimates in this report and was called to the committee's ~++~._.L~_._ _"- _ 1.____.:____ ,_ _ J..l__ 1 o.P ____" '. .J:!.L.1- r'l 1____,:]~ T)_~.___.. (LlJL~ULlUJ.J. alo a. l1tat.U.lig uy (,Ht:: CIUta t::llgulel;'j1" U1. lIue \..IUIUl.i;tUU .1."\IIVt::.1 Board: The composition of the U.S.D.!. figure for salvage is 170,000 acre- feet per annum savings from Senator If ash Regulator Reservoir, 220,000 from groundwater recovery, 100,000 from phreatophyte eradication and control, imd 190,000 from channelization. Deducting these quantities from the amount of the..present losses would leave only 160,000 acre-feet a year to take' care of the remaining net . river losses in the over 200 river miles 'from :Davis Dam to Mexico. In only the 49 miles from Davis Dam to Topock the net losses have averaged 186,000 acre-feet a year since 1953 when extensive chan- nelization work in that .reach was completed. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how Senator Wash, although a worthwhile project, can save 170,000 acre-feet a year. In each of several months of the past 3 years excess arrivals in Mexico were less than 5,000 acre- feet, without Senator Wash. Much of the excess arrival during the past 3 years has been caused by salinity and sediment problems and winter flow factors which Senator.Wash will not solve. Mexico has already protested the ground water recoyery program. Fish and game. and recreational interests are pressing for more,_not less, recreational and wildlife area along the Colorado River; A channelized river with large denuded areas wi.!l surely' be resifi.ted by outdoor enthusiasts. Whereas the C.R.Bc favors all feas~blc water salvage programs, it believes that realism should be made part or the hydrology studies. Large savings -such as assumed by the U.S.D.I. might be realized, but 'should not be assumed until the 'programs have been accomplished. 12 ' . Figures 1 and 2 which f~llow arc graphic illustrations of the differ- ence in water supply anticipated by the state and federal agencies. To as great an extent as possible the two charts illustrate compjuable considerations. _, These figures are illustrative or the past quagmirc of contradictory hydrological data upon which far-reaching water developments are expected to be predicated. ,; It can be seen from the foregoing material that a large amount or water evaporates each year from reservoirs on the Colorado. Accord- ing to the Bureau of Reclamation gross evaporation rates froni'reser- voirs along the mainstream varied from 60 to over 80 inches annually. Net evaporation from Lake Mead during the five-year period ending in 1962 was estimated to average approximately 845,000 acre-feet a year while reservoir evaporation losses below Hoover Dam including Lake Mojave and Lake Havasu are estimated to average 370,000 acre-feet annually. Also, it is estimated by the Colorado River Board that 700,000 acre-feet a year and by the Bureau of Reclamation that 680,000 acre- 1:01 Statement of Dallas Cole, hearing, August 14, 1964, at 2.