Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00123J <br /> <br />develop the balance of our natural supply. I have concluded that <br />the full scope of this subject cannot be adequately discussed in <br />the limited time available tod~y and have therefore primarily <br />confined this reJort to consideration of losses from previously <br />developed water supply systems. That portion of California's <br />natural supply which is not fUlly used now could, of course, also <br />be considered a loss, especially if we were to ignore economic, <br />social, and political constraints. I anticipate that the problems <br />involved in developing these additional supplies as a part of an <br />integrated water plan which will consider all values in the West <br />will command the Council's attention for many meetings to come. <br />What is meant, or what is generally understood, by <br />the terms "avoidable waste of water", or "water losses"? Is it <br />all available water in excess of that put to beneficial consumptive <br />use" Maybe so, but what is beneficial consumptive use? Is the <br />use of water for fish, recreation, and water quality control <br />beneficial" I think i tis. I suggest that this Council may <br />soon find it necessary to establish definitions and criteria to <br />provide a uniform basis for answering these and similar questions. <br />I can cite examples in California which will demonstrate the <br />relevancy of these points. Irrigation efficiency is often used <br />as a measure of water waste, and properly so, if terms are care- <br />fully defined and similar hydrologic conditions exist between <br />areas under consideration. In California, as well as in many <br />other areas in the West, a substantial portion of all irrigated <br />lands overlie usable ground water basins. Water supposedly "lost" <br />to deep percolation under these conditions is not really lost at <br /> <br />-4- <br />