Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />