Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ouo;:,Q2. <br /> <br />- 8 - <br /> <br />The demand of the Fruitland project (2500 acres presently <br />irrigated and 900 potential acres) was placed on the remainder <br />of Column 7, under three assumptions: I, no return flow avail- <br />able to supplement stream runoff; II, return flow available at <br />Fruitland headgate as shown on attached sheets (which is ex- <br />clusive of any return flow from Navajo project); and III, <br />additional return flow above the Fruitland headgate from 5,700 <br />acres in the South San Juan Division of the Navajo project. <br />The analysis indicates that with return flow of co~dition II, <br />the demands of the Fruitland project are generally satisfied. <br />No shortages would occur with the addition of return flow of <br />condi Hon III. <br />The Hogback project consists of 4,550 acres presently irri- <br />gated and 9,800 potential new acres. The diversion demands for <br />this project were imposed on the remainders after the Fruitland <br />project demands were satisfied under conditions II and III. In <br />order to determine the availability of water to meet these <br />demands without reliance on return flows which might develop <br />from the Navajo project, shortages were determined in the case <br />of the addition of return flow under condition IV, to the re- <br />mainder under condition II. These shortages are shown in column <br />22, indicating some shortage in almost every year of the study <br />period. <br />When the remainder from the Fruitland project under condition <br />III is considered together with the addition of return flows <br />under conditions IV and V, the indicated shortages shown in column <br />27 are generally about 6 percent of the headgate diversion demand <br />as assumed. <br /> <br />,-,;,' <br />