Laserfiche WebLink
<br />) ..' <br />002006 <br /> <br />the Ni;ivi;ijo River column of Table 6, actually it was not contemplated <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />that the water designated "available for Dulce Project", in an aver- <br />age amount of 35,000 acre feet, would be released to the Navajo River <br />in the event that the Dulce Project would be eventually constructed. <br />In that case it would be stored in a proposed reservoir and relei;ised <br />through a ci;inal to Dulce Project lands. Under this operation study, <br />for the period 1928-1951, an average of about 23,000 acre feet annually. <br />of Navajo River water would be available for diversion to the Rio <br />Grande. <br /> <br />The Bureau of Reclamation operation study for the 1957 <br /> <br />supplemental report indicates that the Dulce Project was no longer <br />considered. The potential diversion from the Navajo River was esti. <br />mated to average about 57,000 acre feet. This would leave average <br /> <br />flows in the Navajo River amounting to only the prior right by-passes <br /> <br />as shown above. <br /> <br />The monthly releases are somewhat less than the recommended <br /> <br />minimums of Table 11., Ho~..ever, these minimums are in some cases <br /> <br />higher than historic flows. It should be noted that water by-pi;issed <br /> <br />for prior irrigation rights is subject to diversion and re-diversion <br /> <br />which could result in stream flows at critical points considerably <br /> <br /> <br />below the recommended minimums for retaining the fi shery values of <br /> <br /> <br />the stream.. This situation would tend to discount statements made by <br /> <br />the Fish and Wildlife Service as to the generi;il adequacy of the aver- <br /> <br />age by~passes to meet recommended minimums. <br /> <br />This conflict of reported data raises a serious question <br />concerning the intent of the operation of the project after constructi'on. <br /> <br />-15- <br /> <br />J' <br />