Laserfiche WebLink
<br />34 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />District, Tulsa District and Fort Worth District of the Corps made the <br />studies of specific transfer possibilities. <br /> <br />In working with the states through the Council's State Liaison <br />Committee, a pl an evolved for exami ni ng the impacts of such transfers in <br />terms of two sub-alternatives: <br /> <br />o Management Strategy Five-A (MS-5A) - restoration of irrigation on <br />lands where ground water has been physically exhausted under <br />Management Strategy One during the Study period. Water utilization <br />rates were projected as those which would be characteristic under <br />Strategy One whether water applied was drawn from ground water <br />or import water. <br /> <br />o Management Strategy Five-B (MS-5B) - amount of imported water required <br />for restoration of irrigation on lands where the Aquifer is exhausted <br />under Management Strategy Two, imported water applied at Management <br />St rategy One use rate. <br /> <br />These 1 evel s of importati on were selected by the Li ai son Committee as <br />an equitable means of distributing a limited import supply while meeting the <br />Study charge to maintain agricultural production on the High Plains. Because <br />the Liaison Committee found Strategy Five-A more plausible than Five-B, <br />Five-A is discussed in greater detail here. <br /> <br />The acreages which would be supplied with import water are: <br /> <br />Colorado <br />Kansas <br />Nebraska <br />New Mexi co <br />Oklahoma <br />Texas <br /> <br />MS-5A MS-5B <br /> <br />(acres) <br />160,000 145,000 <br />I <br />715,000 540,000 <br /> <br />2,100,000 1,510,000 <br />185,000 125,000 <br /> <br />250,000 195,000 <br /> <br />1,200,000 945,000 <br />