Laserfiche WebLink
<br />aggravated by operation of the Morelos diversion structure, river control <br />work below Parker Dam which may temporarily increase the silt burden, and <br />silt from arroyos below Parker Dam. Because of these circumstances and the <br />continued depletions to be made in the normal flows the river channel will <br />become progressively less capable of carrying the infrequent but certain <br />floods. Moreover, the anticipated progressive rising of the river bed will <br />seriously affect seepage of irrigated lands in both countries. <br /> <br />The most feasible solution appears to be a joint project of the two <br />countries to include a rectified channel from Morelos Dam to tide water, an <br />air line distance of about 45 miles, in lieu of the present meandering channel. <br />The Mexican Section of the Commission has completed a topographic survey of the <br />easterly portion of the delta as a basis for determination of the best location <br />of a rectified channel. Detailed studies will continue, and a plan will be <br />developed. <br /> <br />Credit to Imperial Irrigation District for Its Expenditures on Flood Protection <br />Works on the Lower Colorado River <br /> <br />From 1914 to 1941 Imperial Irrigation District expended or incurred <br />annually large sums for construction, operation and maintenance of 75 miles <br />of levees, mostly in Mexico, and a diversion channel to guard against the <br />river flowing westward into Imperial Valley. Public Law 750, 8lst Congress, <br />2d Session includes authorization of a credit to and on behalf of the District <br />in an amount not greater than 80% of such District costs as Shall be found <br />equitable by the American Commissioner of the International Boundary and <br />Water Commission. In no event shall the total credit exceed $3,000,000. <br />During the past year data were secured and compiled for this determination <br />through the cooperation of the Imperial Irrigation District. The studies <br />will contiIiue. <br /> <br />;,********** <br /> <br />SYMPOSIUM ON REPORT OF <br />PRESIDENT'S WATER RESOURCES POLICY COMMISSION <br /> <br />Arvin B. Shaw, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of California <br />W. G. Sloan, Consulting Engineer <br /> <br />MR. SHAW: In 1947 it had come to be realized among people throughout the <br />country that national laws respecting water development were in a chaotic <br />hodgepodge. This situation arose primarily because the federal government <br />had sort .of,backed into the field. Water development, originally a function <br />of individuil.ls;"grew first into larger community undertakings and only gradually <br />reached such'proportions that communities were unable to finance the projects <br />and the federal government was called upon. <br /> <br />The federal function fell into the hands chiefly of the Corps of <br />Engineers, Department of the Interior, and Department of Agriculture. In the <br />beginning each agency was assigned a particular kind of development, and natural- <br />ly the laws of each related to its particular field. Later, as multiple-purpose <br /> <br />-31- <br />