<br />14
<br />
<br />Comparison of Diversions and Reauirements
<br />
<br />Estimated irriaated acreaqe
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />The estimated irrigated acreage served by each canal and as used in
<br />this report was obtained from the Farm Water Utilization Study prepared
<br />by the Bureau of Reclamation for the Narrows Project. The Bureau of
<br />Reclamation compiled the irrigated acreage by the use of aerial photos
<br />and maps on which the irrigated areas were shown during a field survey
<br />to determine the land use. The irrigated areas were then measured and
<br />computed by the use of a planimeter.
<br />
<br />Other sources reporting the amount of irrigated land under each
<br />canal were investigated and considerable discrepancy was found as shown
<br />in Table 2.
<br />
<br />Table 2. Estimated Irrigated Acreages Served
<br />by Water District 2 Ditch Systems
<br />as Determined from Various Sources
<br />
<br />Canal Wtr. Com. Will iam Raymond
<br />Code No. Canal Name Bur. of Rec. 1961 & 66 Gaunt Anderson
<br />1 Prospect Valley 14,953 32,6B9
<br />2 Lower Barr Lake Canals 27,070
<br />3 Fulton Ditch 12,013 16,500 12,157 16,000
<br />4 Brantner Di tch 4,3B8 6,000 4,570
<br />5 Brighton Ditch 2,lBB 5,500 1,843 3,200 ,
<br />6 Lupton Bottom Ditch 4,641 7,800 5,428
<br />7 Platteville Ditch 1,578 5,500 4,800 4,000
<br />8 Meadow Island III 2,073 2,550 1,272
<br />9 Evans No.2 & Platte Valley 19,975 16,500 7,325*
<br />10 Gilmore Ditch 2,405
<br />11 Meadow Island No. 2 3,219 5,u35 2,905
<br />12 Farmers Independent 6,194 9,000 7,500 9,000
<br />13 Vlestern Mulual 5,028 9,000 7,277 10,000
<br />14 Union Ditch 5,245 7,000 5,863 5,000
<br />15 Lower La tham , 10,665 16,500 29,322
<br />16 Patterson 708 1,500
<br />17 Hishland '2,292 1,000
<br />* Evans No. 2 only
<br />
<br />Mr. William Gaunt, attorney and secretary for the Consolidated Ditches
<br />Association and Dr. Raymond Anderson of the Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A.
<br />provided irrigated acreages from information available to them. The water
<br />commissioner showed the acreage to be the same for 1961 and 1966.
<br />
<br />The discrepancy shown for Prospect Valley is undoubtedly the difference
<br />between Prospect Valley itself and the entire area served', by the Henrylyn
<br />Irrigation District. This irrigated area is located outside the boundaries
<br />of Water District 2, but receives its supply from diversions within the
<br />District. Discrepancies for the other ditches involved can probably only
<br />be resolved by a field check.
<br />
|