Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Errol Jensen <br />December 5, 1994 <br />Page two <br /> <br />5. Table 1 needs to have a average precipitation line included, <br /> <br />6, Page 13 would be one place to include additional discussion about benefits of return <br />flows. <br /> <br />7. Pages 17 and 18 would be another place to discuss benefits of return flows particularly <br />with respect to water users and the Indian Water Right Settlement Agreement. <br /> <br />8. Page 19 a scale, source and some cultural.features to help one locate themselves on the <br />map would be nice. <br /> <br />9. The water budget discussion should address the lack of commercial and industrial uses <br />in this area. It should also contain some additional discussion about total water supply <br />and include evaporation from all water surfaces plus some discussion about sublimitation <br />rather than leaving "irrigation evaporation" and "deep percolation" as the catch-all <br />categories. <br /> <br />'10. Table 11 requires some additional explanation as to how it was derived, It does not <br />match up well with the other tables in the report containing a 19,450 acre value, <br /> <br />11, The water budget equation used should be spelled out rather than forcing the reader to <br />figure it out. <br /> <br />12, Partitioning table 13 would make it easier for the reader to follow. Also, providing some <br />equations at the top of appropriate columns would help, <br /> <br />13. We have noted editorial comments on pages 3, 24, 31 which we can quickly give you <br />over the phone, Please contact Randy Seaholm on my staff for this information. <br /> <br />Again, thanks very much for the opportunity to comment on this report. As we stated earlier, <br />the report provides very useful insight into the water situation on Florida Mesa and is generally well <br />done. <br /> <br />CL~ <br /> <br />Daries C. Lile <br />Director <br /> <br />DCL/DRS/bj <br /> <br />bj1418.1tr <br /> <br />-' <br />