WSP06690 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ,~ '. . . >__;Ii .. .. ,- . - '. .~ ~ --...... - .. I - .. u , -..., I ,J . 4. . . approve drainwater filings for salinity control pur- poses in these basins? Also in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, the various alternatives have been developed as discrete alternatives, without regard to other alternatives which might impact the availability of drainwater (e.g., irrigation improve- ments and land retirement). If one of these latter alternatives is implemented concurrently with the use of drainwater, a careful study will have to be made. 5. In Chapter 8, SELECTIVE WITHDRAWAL, it was as sumed that minimum flow requirements could be met by return flow below the diversion point and bypassing 1 cfs. The issue is: are there minimum flow requirements that invalidate the assumptions used? 6. It was also assumed in Chapter 5 that downstream water rights could be purchased so that larger volumes could be withdrawn. Can these water rights be purchased? 7. In Chapters 9 and 10, RETIRE FARMLAND and FRESH WATER FOR OTHER BENEFICIAL USE, it has been assumed that the phreatophyte consumptive use (1.1 acre-feet/ acre of irrigated land) can be transferred from the retired land to mitigation for the loss of the wetlands im- pacted by the land retirement. Since the net return flow will not be impacted, the change amounts to a possible change in diversion point. The issue is that the right to that water isn I t formerly recorded, it just happens. Can the diversion point be changed? ~ ". 4 l' , )' ,,' , " :\, \..: ~ 11-5