Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

17 19 20 20 20 21 23 23

5. 20 5. 38 5, 29 5.16 5.37 5.56 5.52 5. 39

0.88 1.02 1.06 1.03 1.07 1.17 1.27 1.24

2, 250 2, 393 2,415 2, 446 2, 513 2, 399 2, 312 2,470

1, 899 1, 894 1, 840 1, 774 1, 852 1,893 1, 839 1, 815

387 443 462 442 461 505 549 543

(-36)

59
113
230
200

(1)
(-76)

112

(101.6)

97.5
95.3
90.6

92.0
(100.0)
(103.3)

95.5

31.07

2,400

1, 851

3 464

20

35.33

2

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT

WATER FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE AND LEACHING REQUIREMENT AND THEORETICAL FARM EFFICIENCY 1959–66

Per irrigated acre

Consumptive

use+

Teaching
Leaching

requirement
requirement

(2) X100
(percent) (100)-(3)
(3)

(4)

Total
consumptive

use 1

Total
delivered
to users

X100 2

Consumptive

Leaching
requirement

only
(4)-(2)

(5)

Total irrigation acre (1,000

acres)

(1)

Farm efficiency

(percent)
(6-9).
(6)

(10)

Total leaching Available for
requirement farm efficiency 2
(1)X(5) (6)–(7+8)
(8)

(9)

use 1

Year

(1)X(2)

(7)

(2)

(6)

1959.
1960.
1961.
1962
1963.
1964.
1965
1966

440.0
434.5
435.5
429.5
430.5
431.5
432.5
437.5

4.32
4.36
4.23
4.13
4.30
4.39
4.25
4. 15

433.9

3 4.26

8-yr average.--

Note: Cols. 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are in 1,000 acre-feet. 1 Based on Blaney-Criddle Formula. IMPERIAL IRRIGA

2 Represents water that was available for farm losses after leaching requirements and consumptive use had been satisfied.

3 Weighted average: Col. 2 refer T-1029. Col. 3 refer T-1031. Col. 6 refer T-1019.

17 19 20 20

1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964. 1965 1966 1967 1968.

440.0 434.5 435.5 429.5 430.5 431.5 432.5 437.5 445.5 441.0

4. 32 4.36 4.23 4.13 4.30 4.39 4.25 4.15 4. 24 4.04

5. 20 5. 38 5. 29 5.06 5.37 5.56 5.52 5. 39 5.37 5.11

0.88 1.02 1.06 1.03 1.07 1.17 1.27 1.24 1.13 1.07

2,250 2, 396 2, 415 2, 446 2,513 2, 399 2, 312 2, 470 2, 365 2, 476

1,899 1, 894 1, 840 1, 774 1,853 1, 893 1, 839 1, 815 1, 889 1, 782

(-36)

59
113
230
200

387 443 462 442 461 505 549 543 503 472 103 3 493 516

(101.6)

97.5
95.3
90.6
92.0
100.0
(103.3)

95.5
(101.1)

91.0

23 23 21 21

(-76)

112
(-27)

222

10-yr average..

3 4.24

436.0 444.5

[ocr errors]

4.12

3 5.07 5. 28

3 1.13

1.16

2, 404 2,531

1, 848 1,833

972

182

92.8

ON DISTRICT WATER FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE AND LEACHING RE

AND THEORETI

FARM EFFICIEN

1959-68

Total irrigated
acre (1,000

acres)

Per irrigated acre

Consumptive

uset

leaching
Leaching

requirement
requirement

(2)X100
(percent) (100)-(3)
(3)

(4)

Total
consumptive

Leaching
requirement

only
(4)-(2)

Consumptive

Total
delivered
to users

Farm efficiency

(percent)
(6–9)X100 2
(6)

use 1

Year

use 1

Total leaching Available for
requirement farm efficiency 2
(1)X(5) (6)-(7+8)
(8)

(9)

(1)X(2)

(1)

(2)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(10)

! Based on Blaney-Criddle formula.

2 Represents water that was available for farm losses after leaching requirement and consumptive use had been satisfied.

3 Weighted average. Note: Col. 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are in 1,000 acre-feet.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness was to be Mr. Roland C. Fischer, Secretary-Engineer of the Colorado River Water Conservation District.

Mr. Goslin. Mr. Chairman, I have been in touch with Mr. Fischer, and he announced he would not be here today, but would like to have permission to file a statement.

(The statement of Roland C. Fischer is as follows and was submitted in writing.) JOINT STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

AND THE SOUTHWESTERN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, We ask that this statement, which is submitted jointly by the Colorado River Water Conservation District and the Southwestern Water Conservation District in support of H.R. 12165, the “Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act”, be made a part of the record. To save the time of the Subcommittee and its staff, we add our support to the statement of the Committee of Fourteen which includes comments and detail of great value to the Subcommittee, but need not be repeated.

The Districts are public agencies of the State of Colorado, each established by a special act of the state legislature. Together they geographically encompass ail of the area in Colorado West of the Continental Divide and are the source of 70% of the virgin flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry, Arizona, the dividing point between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins. The Districts are shown on the attached map. At present only a small fraction of the flow generated by the two Districts is utilized within their boundaries, but the construction of several water resource projects is imminent.

Both Districts have the statutory responsibility of conserving and applying to beneficial use in their respective areas the waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries within the State of Colorado. Rivers included are the headwaters and a substantial part of the runoff area of the mainstem of the Colorado River and many of its principal tributaries. These tributaries include the San Juan, Dolores, Gunnison, White and Yampa Rivers, as well as numerous streams tributary to them.

We appreciate the opportunity to present this statement in support of the passage of H.R. 12165, a bill designed to reduce the salinity of the Colorado River, but our support certainly does not imply any responsibility for salinity; this is a basin-wide problem. Salinity control measures provided for in H.R. 12165 will allow and should provide for continuing economic growth so dependent on the increased use of water. We commend the sponsors of H.R. 12165 for the language in Sec. 201a, directing the Secretary to implement the salinity control policy that recognizes that the Upper Basin States shall develop their compactallocated share of Colorado River Basin water.

Two of the four projects to reduce salinity to be authorized by Title II of the proposed legislation, the Paradox Valley unit and the Grand Valley unit are within the geographic area of the districts. Three of the units for which the Secretary is authorized and directed to complete planning reports in Section 203; Lower Gunnison, Glenwood-Dotsero_Springs and McElmo Creek, are also within the boundaries of the Districts. The five salinity control projects are shown on the map.

Our continuing and abiding interest in this legislation can be further demonstrated by the fact, as this committee knows, that seven reclamation projects n the area of the Districts have been authorized by Congress for construction but are not constructed because of lack of funding. Two, Fruitland Mesa and Savery-Pot Hook, authorized in 1964, received no recommendation for any appropriation in the President's FY 1975 Budget message. The other five (San Miguel, Dolores, Animas-La Plata, Dallas Creek and West Divide) are recommended for only small amounts of planning moneys. Two of these projects, Animas-La Plata and Dolores, would greatly benefit the Ute Indian tribes in Southwestern Colorado. One, West Divide, is essential to supply water for the emerging oil shale industry. The seven water resource projects are shown on the map.

All seven projects are essential to the nation's economy, prosperity and ability to be self-sustaining in energy and food and fiber. The energy crisis has focused national attention on the coal as well as oil shale potential of Western Colorado. The development of these energy resources cannot proceed without a reliable water supply. The construction of these authorized projects can, in part at least, guarantee the requisite water supply reliability. We would, therefore, request that, as the opportunities present themselves, the committee members will urge their counterparts in the Appropriations Committees to better fund the planning and construction of these projects.

Our two districts recognize the requirement to reduce the salinity of the Colorado River. We wish to emphasize that we support H.R. 12165 as drafted, largely because it provides for salinity control projects in the United States upstream from Imperial Dam providing some measure of assurance that the Upper Basin States of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming will be able to beneficially use their compact-apportioned shares of the Colorado River Basin waters generated within their boundaries. Our two districts would necessarily express opposition to any Colorado River Basin salinity control bill, for example, that provides only for a desalting plant near the Mexican Border for the sole benefit of Mexico. The salt problem is basin-wide and the legislation to implement salt reduction must recognize that the control program must also be basin-wide if present salinities in the River are to be maintained while the Basin States develop their compact apportioned shares of Colorado River water.

Our districts and the State of Colorado support the program to reduce the salinity of the River so long as it does not limit or imply a limitation on Colorado's right to use Colorado's share of the river. The Conference in the Matter of Protection of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River in making its Conclusions and Recommendations at Denver, Colorado, on April 27, 1972, recognized this right when in recommeding the solution of the salanity problem said:

"*** the salinity problem must be treated as a basin wide problem that needs to be solved to maintain Lower Basin water salinity at or below present levels while the Upper Basin continues to lop its compact-apportioned waters. (emphasis added).

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »