Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. NORVIEL: I am not discussing the question. I am just <br /> <br />trying to get at ;Ihat is meant by this language, In the proposal <br /> <br />that one-half the allotment to Mexico is to be delivered at Lee's <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ferry, is any estimate to be made of the loss by evaporation or <br /> <br />percolation bet;reen Lee's Ferry and the point of diversion to <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Nexico? <br /> <br />MR. CARPENTER: No. That was considered. It was thought <br /> <br />that the pouer benefits and other benefits that ;lOuld rtlll to the <br /> <br />lower country ;lOuld offset the losses. That power benefits would <br /> <br />run to the louer territory, as the water flows along it would <br /> <br />furnish an additional amount of energy that would be availed of <br /> <br />by the lower countI"J for their development, It was thought that <br />that would offset evaporation losses, Let me make a further state- <br /> <br />ment: If within the Upper territory, say in Colorado, a reser- <br /> <br />voir is . constructed, ;Ie will have an average evaporation loss _ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. or.if a reservoir was constructed at Flaming Gorge, we will have <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />an evaporation loss, We will have to stand that, and it was <br /> <br /> <br />thought the pOifer benefits uould offset the evaporation loss. <br /> <br />MR. NORVIEL: I am referring to the half of the water you are <br /> <br />to deliver to Mexico. <br /> <br />MR. CARPENTER: It lfas thought that all the evaporation <br /> <br />losses along the river in such division would be .offset by the <br /> <br />POifer benefits, and the Mexican water l.r.ith it, I may say, 14r, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Norviel,-- on that line of the Mexican water -- that the increased <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />loss would probably be.negligible for that amount of water will be <br /> <br />12th - S,F. <br />9 <br /> <br />79 <br /> <br />, <br />.:Ii <br />