Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001479 <br /> <br />water in 'the dam crt all t:imes, and would reduce the capaci,ty of - <br /> <br />the conservation pool at a fas'ter rate. <br /> <br />2. The farmers below the dam like dirty water for <br /> <br />irrigation; they say tha-t it: goes far-ther because channel losses <br /> <br />are less. <br /> <br />3. I't would be extremely difficult, if no'c impossible, <br /> <br />to administer the permanent pool; it would require m~{ing assump- <br /> <br />tions and es,timates to segrega'l:e permanent pool water from <br /> <br />conservation water. <br /> <br />4. There is unmeasured inflow to the <br /> <br />I <br />! <br />reservoir 'that <br /> <br />is not measured <br /> <br />belongs to the downst,ream irrigators. since it <br /> <br />when it, comes in it would be difficul't to pass the rightful <br /> <br />quan'cit.y down to the irrigators. <br /> <br />5. ~'here are plenty of o'ther lakes to develop in the <br /> <br />area tha't are bet-cer suited for fish and wildlife purposes. <br /> <br />6. If the flood control pool can be invaded, it should <br /> <br />be for irrigation purposes. <br /> <br />The proponents argued: <br /> <br />1. Sediment in vlater is a mixed blessing. <br /> <br />It requires <br /> <br />additional maintenance, decreases pene-tration into the soil and <br /> <br />carries no more plant food value than clear water, <br /> <br />2. Deposition of sil-t farther ups'tream of the dam <br /> <br />because of the additional storag'e may ac'cually increase the useful <br /> <br />life of the dam. <br /> <br />-9- <br />