Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- ~~",,-, <br /> <br />I <br />~, <br />"~i <br />" <br /> <br />Net Flow Differences Between Glen Canlon and Hoover <br /> <br />Table II lJompares, for the pst 19 years of record, the flows <br />at the Glen Canyon Dam site (Colorado River at Lees Ferry), the changes <br />in Lake Mead storilge, and the flows of the ColoraJo River below Hoover <br />Dam. In this 19-year period, the indicated annual differences vary from <br />a 10s8 of 1,'J03~OOQ acre-feet to a gain of 524,000 acre-feet with an <br />average annual lose of about 113,000 acre-feet. ~tudieB presented by the <br />Bureau of Reclamation i:1 the report 011 the Colorado !liver Easln (House <br />Document 419, 80th Congress, F~rst Session) snow ~nnual stream flow <br />depletions from present irrigation and industrial developments in this <br />portion of th8 Colorado River Basin to the extent of 266,000 acre-feet. <br />These pres0nt I\~es are reflected in the determination of past annual net <br />losses. <br /> <br />Potential future irrigation developments in 1his portion of <br />the Colorado Rive!" Basin are estimated in House Document 419 to deplete <br />the stream flow by an additional 285,00{) acre-feet annually. if and when <br />the potential projects are constructed. In the operation studies reported <br />herein, the average annual nei. 10B6 is assumed t,) vary from 100..000 acre- <br />feet in the year 1956 to 400,000 acra-feet in the year 1970 as shown in <br />Table III. <br /> <br />Uses and Losses Between Hoover Dam and Manco <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />; <br /> <br />The uses below Hoover Dam which are exp~)cted to increase in the <br />immediate f~ture are discussed hereinafter. <br /> <br />The estimate of potential Arizona uses is based upon serving <br />the following acreages or legal limitations: . Colorado River Indian <br />Reservation, 100,000 acres; Yuma Valley, 48,000 acres; Unit B, 3,300 acres; <br />Gila Project, 600,000 acre-feet.J Circumst>ll1ces seem to indicate that there <br />will not be further new major de'lelopmentf1 e<Jmpleted in Ar:! zona prior to <br />1970 to utilize its contract amount of 2,oCO,000 acre-feet. <br />': <br /> <br />'!he estimat"l of potential Cal:!.r'.irni.a use", of 5,362,000 8<'re-feet <br />is equal to the total of the first siil-priorities r'eferred to in thH <br />California contracts. <br /> <br />Nevada uses are based upon furnislUng wa tilt' eT-a)- -Co the contract <br />amount of 300,000 acre-feet. Of this total, it is est1m<<""J,1 that 46,000 <br />acre-feet will be used below Hoover Dam while 254,(;00 :i':rs- :.-eet will be <br />used above the Dam. The 254.000 acre-feet is accounted for in tho dstjmate <br />of now. differences between Glen Cal'lfon and aOOVG~'. <br /> <br />~' <br /> <br />During oper'it1ng year beginning April i, 1956, ffi"asured water <br />reaching Hmoo totaled 1,762,000 acre-,feet. A Dart of this total cor.- <br />sisted of water released to satisfy orders made by United States users, <br />and not taken by them. J..s :3ddLt1onal skill is gained in the operation of <br />