Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'" <br />-- <br />l' <br /> <br />Il'.asmuch as the gages used to measure the water supply available <br /> <br />are usually upstream from the area to be served, the losses in the river or <br /> <br />stream must be added to the diversion requirerae;;t at the headgate to translate <br /> <br />the requirement to the gage, The r-ure::.u of Reclamatior, did this by estimating <br /> <br />phreatophytic use and water surface evaporation. The estimates of river loss <br /> <br />are reflect~d in the irrigation roquircments shown ill Table 15 for the presently <br /> <br />irrigated lands and in Table 16 for all lilndz in the pro;ect area after the <br /> <br />proj ect is in operation. <br /> <br />Return flow was estimated to be 75 per cent of the difference between <br /> <br />the quantitY' Of water diverted ond that consumptively used on the land under <br /> <br />irrigation. Forty-six per cent of the return flow was estimated to return during <br /> <br />the non-irrigJtion season. The balance, 54% was assumed to return according <br /> <br />to the following perGeEtages of total retc:rn flow: <br /> <br />May <br />June <br />July <br />August <br />September <br /> <br />4.2% <br />10.9% <br />14.0% <br />12.5% <br />--11.5;:0 <br /> <br />Total <br /> <br />54.1% <br /> <br />Table 17 shows the quantities of return flow in acre-feet th,}t mi9Lt be <br /> <br />expected without and with the project in operation. Note that under "with <br /> <br />proj ect conditions" the return flow from area s 4, 9 and 10 reflect the return <br /> <br />from canal losses. <br /> <br />Table 18 presents Ll slmu!J.tcd operation of the project area as <br /> <br />it exists today, or "without proj ect conditions". The effect of the drought <br /> <br />- 4 - <br />