Investigation of Probable Power Variation of Black Canyon Reservoir Citation Evans, Thomas Hayhurst (1930) Investigation of Probable Power Variation of Black Canyon Reservoir. Master's thesis, California Institute of Technology. doi:10.7907/1ntd-ma81. https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechTHESIS:08202024-180057426 Abstract No abstract. Item Type: Thesis (Master's thesis) Subject Keywords: (Civil Engineering) Degree Grantor: California Institute of Technology Division: Engineering and Applied Science Major Option: Civil Engineering Thesis Availability: Public (worldwide access) Research Advisor(s): Thomas, Franklin Thesis Committee: Unknown, Unknown Defense Date: 7 June 1930 Record Number: CaltechTHESIS:08202024-180057426 Persistent URL: https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechTHESIS:08202024-180057426 DOI: 10.7907/1ntd-ma81 Default Usage Policy: No commercial reproduction, distribution, display or performance rights in this work are provided. ID Code: 16654 Collection: CaltechTHESIS Deposited By: Benjamin Perez Deposited On: 21 Aug 2024 18:32 Last Modified: 21 Aug 2024 18:37 Thesis Files PDF (Thesis) - Final Version See Usage Policy. 28MB PDF (Plate 1: Cumulative mass curves of the Colorado River, reconstructed to Black Canyon for present and future conditions) - Final Version See Usage Policy. 3MB PDF (Plate 2: Probable power variation at Black Canyon, present and future) - Final Version See Usage Policy. 2MB PDF (Plate 3: Capacity head curve for Black Canyon Dam) - Final Version See Usage Policy. 1MB Repository Staff Only: item control page

INVESTIGATION OF PROBABLE POWER VARIATION AT BLACK CANYON RESERVOIR THOMAS H. EVANS Presented as a requirement for the degree of Maste.r, of. Sele-n ae. ~1n :Ci vi·'l Eh1gtneering at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California June 7, 1930 a.. BOULDER DAM IN ITS TRUE MEANING. There are those, to be sure. to whom Boulder Dam will mean nothing more than a dam higher than any other dam in the world, a great many millions of tons of water, and a great. many millions of bags of cement - a construction feat for which our engineers are to be commended.· But there are others to whom Boulder Bam means an intang•ble something which cannot be measured in cubic feet - something which caused citizens in every town along the banks of the majestic co;orado River to ring bells, fire cannons, and meet in public halls to testify to their joy and relief when news came to them that President Calvin Coolidge had signed the Swing-Johnson bill, committing the Gove rnment to provision of $165,000,000 for the conservation and use of the waters of the lower Colorado. For to these people Boulder Dam means the protection of their homes and families, th~ crops that are their livelihood; to them it means relief in the dreaded periods of drought, protection in time of flood. It means the development of the entire Southwest, the building of a vast region, the reclamation of desert areas; it means the springing up of cities, the hum of commerce and trade. Lucy Salamanca ( In Washington Post, January 12. 19 30 ) • TABLE OF CONTENTS Content Page Boulder Dam in Its True Meaning a. Contents ~ap of Lower Basin o. Foreword d. Part I Reconstruction of the Colorado River l. Ueecof the Mass Diagram 10. Corrections 14. Lower Basin Irrigation 15. Power Computations 17. Pa.rt II Conclusions 20. Picture of Black Canyon Part III, Appendix Table I Yuma. Flow Record l. Table II Gila 2. Table III Correction at Yuma for u.B. Table IV at Black Can, Mass . . It Table V Net Future Mass at ~lack c. Table VI Power Variations Plates I,II,& III Mass Diagram and Power Variations C. '' NJEVA DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'\..' BUREAU OF RECLAMATION '\,. COLORADO RIVER BASIN '' BELOW BOULDER DAM MAP NO. 23566 Las Veg Seal~ of Miles 10 0 25 50 '' 1929 --- IRRIGATED AREAS ~ IRRIGABLE AREAS ~tfit~!l Bernardino "lso.., o"' "'<> l;f./,71l,W/~ CCt..e.s - ... ~?f,~~~~ LOWER CALIFORNIA J.Hk/len 6-7913 11. DOREWORD This study has been ma.de with the object in mind of tabulating and charting the power p0ssibilities that would exist at Bo~lder Dam consistent with flood control, irr• igation, and domestic use. ~he writer realizes that the Bureau of Reola.ma.ti on engineers, and mthers, have made ex.. haustive studies of this project for many years, a.nd has based his study principally upon the results or their work. Jor his own benefit, however, and possibly that of others, who may be so interested, the writer has attempted to oom• pile these results under one cover; with a complete out• line of how such a power study would be made. Altho Bureau of Reclamation data has been used pre• dominently thru out, the final results seem to be at var• ience with theirs; probably because other assumptions were made as to evaporation, river losses. water duty, etc. This was done in several oases where there was wide var• iation between different reports. Others were chosen in an attempt to show the worst possible condition or else an average of several reports may have been ta.ken. The writer wishes ,to express his sincere thanks to the following men for kind personal aid rendered rturing the study: Dr. Elwood Mead, Mr. R.F.Walter, and Mr. R.M.Priest, all of the Bureau of Reolamatiom; Professor Franklin Thomas, l head of the Civil Engineering Department at c.I.T.; Mr.M.J. Dow4, Chief Engineer of the Imperial Irrigation District. Financial status being rather low at this time of the ·year,the writer has had to type his own work, and trusts that errors in spelling and English will be overl0oked. Thomas H.Evans Pasadena, June 8, 1930. 1. PART I RECONSTRUCTION OF THE COLORADO RIVER. A power study consists essentially of knowing the amount of river discharge at a ceiain point along its course. In order to arrive at this, however, the investigator must have at hand a mass of data concerning past stream flows, river losses, flood control features, and withdramals for irrigation, if such exist. Aocuraoy 0f results, of course, depends upon accurady and length of time for which hydrow graphic data has been obtained. It was not until 1902 that the Bureau of Reclamation, formerly the Reclamation Service, established a gaging station on the Colorad River at ·Yuma. Therefore,it is apparent that studies aade on this river are· of doubtful accuracy, since a twentyMeight year hydrographic record is relatively sho,rt. Previousto 1902, when the Yuma records start, there may have occurred a relatively dry period of years which would be of value in the record. Some authorities claim that rainfall, and coHsequently r iver flow, occurs in cycles of wet and dry seasons of, roughly,eleven years duration. Others disagree with this, claiming the existence of cycles of twenty or more years. Both of these theories seem to hold for different areast and since the watershed which the Colorado River drains is of such magnitude it is problematical of what length the wet an dry cycles might be. 2. Be that as it may, it is certain that the official Yuma records do not contain an important period occurring previous to 1902. Some more or less reliable estimates of these runoffs have been made in order to include part of it in the investigations. We are exceedingly fortunate if the thirtyone year record we now have is a true representation of futw ure periods of such length, for it is upon this that all succeeding computations are based. Two different periods have been c1t9sen for investigation, the conditions in each of which will doubtless affect diff• erences in reservoir regulation. The first, hereafter called Case I, assumes that the Boulder Dam was completed at the beginning of the period of record and operating under conditions of 1930; while the second, Case II, considers a period in the far distant future when full development will have occurred in both the Upper and Lower Basins. Case II also assumes additional evaporation losses due to the completion of more upstream reservoirs. In the next few pages the outline of livestigations under conditions as existing in 1930 will be made. This is done using as basic data the twenty-eight year period of river flow at Yuma. What is desired is the flow at Black Canyon if the irrigation development and transmountain diversions in the Upper Basin had always been the same as in December, 1929. It should be here noted that uupper Basin" is used in a different sense from that of the Seven-State Compaot, whioh includes the watersheds only to Lee's Ferry. For the purposes of this study it will include all watersheds up to Black Canyon, since all development above this point must be treated as a unit. Wherever Boulder Dam. or reservoir is used in this paper it should be taken to mean that at Black Canyon, since this is to be the actual location of the prolect. In order to find the present and future irrigable acreage in the Upper Basin several reports were used and a comparison made, as shown in Exhibit I. ~t should be noted that LaRue and Weymouth agree precisely as to future acreage, al tho they disagree slightly on that in 1922. Upper Basin Irrigable Acreage. Report Acres in thousands. Present Future Total Difference - LaRue, 1922 w. s.#552 1, 500 4,240 2,740 "Development of ImperiaJ. Valley 11 , 1920 1,470 3,930 2,460 Weymouth, Vol.II,1922 1,450 41,190 2,740 u.s.G.s.,1922 1,360 3,600 2,240 Ave r ages 1,470 4,120 2,650 EXHIBIT I All of the values given seem to check within reasonable limits. Those of the u.s.G.s. are for only three of the t r ibutary basins and check if the acreages for the smaller basins are included. For the final anaJ.ysis the figures from w.S.#556 were used, as were those for the rates of acreage increase since the beginning of the period¼ 1 w.s.#556, P.109 4. In order to bring everything up to date(l93O) an increase in acreage from 1922 the same as that for the previous eight years mrs assumed. This gave a figure of 1,780.000 acres of land irrigated at present in the Upper Basin. Another source of withdrawal upstream are the transmbuntain diversions into the Salt take and Mississippi re• gions. These increased from 1,000 acre-feet annually in 1906 to 11~000 in 1922. 1 Assuming a simiaar increase to 1930 gives 160,000 aore-feetbso diverted. Now we must interpolate between the values given in w.s.#556 in order to obtain the probable acreage irrigated during each year of the period. Since monthly data is wanted the area will be assumed as constant thru out any one year. These data are found in Table III in the Appendix. In order to arrive at figures for the total diversion for each month of the period a fair water duty must be obtained. The duty in the Upper Basin has been variously estimated from 1.25 to 1.54 feetbper acre per year, and averages about 1.40. In order to make a conservative estimate a value of 1.55 will be used. ?his is close to that used by Mr.~.c. LaRue, 2 and his values for monthly duty are used with a change in the figure for March. He assumes a return flow of .05 acreifeet vs. o.oo used by the writer. Exhibit II gives the duty by months. The negative quantities are return flows 1. w.s.#556 2. Ibid. from areas in the wetter months of the year. The algebraic total for the year is 1.55 acre-feet, however. Monthly Diversion in Acre-Feet per Acre. J"anuary February March April May J"une J"uly August September October November December Diversion Return Net 0 0.05 -0.05 -0.05 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.7 o.8 o.6 0.3 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0 0.1 0 o.o'i 1.45' 0 3.0 o.o 5 0 ( change) 0.15 0.3 o• .5 0.5 0.3 0.1 .. 0.1 ... 0.05 ... o. 0 '5 1.55 EXHIBIT II Now all that is necessary is to multiply the acreage by the monthly water duty and the total monthly diversion, or return for irrigation is obtained. To this must be added any transmountain diversion for the month. In order to obtain this monthly data tha yearly totals were divided in the same ratio as thatestimated for future transmountain diversion. 1 This division is shown in Exhibit III. The original table was for 1922, however, and corrections have been made to make it applicable to the future period following 1930. Estimated Future Depletions in Upper Basin. January February March April May June July August September October November December Acre-feet in thousands. Irrigation Diversions Total out of basin 20 30 50 315 1,030 l, 465 585 165 40 # 36 # 47 # 10 3,610 22 148 75 32 19 16 7 317 20 30 50 315 1,050 1,605 660 195 55 # 20 # 40 # 10 3, 910 EXH IBIT III lVDevelopment of I mperial Valley, n 6. The total diversions, or returns, are given in Col. 3, Table III. The difference between these and that used in 1929 gives the correctibi.'. to be su~tracted ( or added ) to the old streamwflow record for that particular month. These corrections are shown in Col. 4, Table III, and are of constantly d&creasing value since 1899. If these corrections are now applied to the hydrographic records of the river, as obtained from the Bureau of Reclamation, it will have been corrected at Yuma for all ups~ream diversions in Case I. Since other corrections must also be applied to the records thase just determined will be used later as shown in Table IV, Appendix. In order to obtain a reconstructed river at Black Canyon flowing under present conditions several other corrections are nesessary between Yuma and Black Canyon. Since the Yuma records contain the flow of the Gila Rivar, these must be subtracied. Dnversions are also made at the Laguna Dam, ten miles above Yuma, for use on the Yuma irrigation project of the Bureau of Reclamation, in Arizona and California. These are of considerable magnitude and must be added to the hydrographic record Another additi.on must be made for the losses on the river between the Laguna Dam and B1ack Canyon WWftich occur due to evaporation and irrigation diversions for the Parker and Blythe projects. The first item, flow of the Gila, has been accurately tabulated since 1903 by the Bureau and is shown in Table II, Appendix. The diversions at Laguna have been obtained from the Bureau's Yuma office for the entire period for which the prejedt has been in operation. Altho this was given in yearly amounts the monthly totals have been assumed as proportional to those of 1929, shown in Ex_~ibit IV. Laguna Dive rsions for 1929 in Percent of the Total. January February March April May June 7.2 July August September October November December 6.8 8.6 8.6 8.9 8.8 9.2 8.9 7.4 8.7 8.3 8.6 100.0 EXHIBIT IV The river losses between Black Canyon and Laguna is an item subject to almost pure assumption. The evaporatj_on losses are caused by periodic overflowing of the river banks below the canyon sectdlon exposing huge surf aces to the sun's rays. This varies greatly, •of course, with the magnitude of the flood crest pas sing at the __ :time. The pa.rt of the loss due to beneficial consumptive uses can be fairly accurately determined. This item of loss between ~lack Canyon and Laguna will be the srune for both Case I and II, since all ultimate irrigation uses will draw from waters now wasting by evaporation on the flooded lands.The Bureau has estimated 865,000 acre-feet as the total annual loss 1 and uses a figure of 900,000 acre-feet~ The writer has chosen the latter as best adaptable to this study. Mr.M.J .Dow·d, Chief engineer of the Imperial Irrigation District, estimates a loss, including reservoir evaporation, of 1,240,000 acre-feet yearly between Laguna and Lee's Ferry. By subtracting from this the item of reservoir evaporation, one arrives at a figure which checks closely that of the above, if allowance is made for the much greater river length taken by Mr. Dowd. l.Senate Doc. #186, P.82 2. Ibid.• Tables 8, 13, 14 8. In order to,obtain the monthly losses an assumption has been made that t h ey are in approximately the same ratio as t he a verage mon t hly river flows, shown in Table I, Appendix. Irr- igation losses do not necessarily occtilr synchronously, but probably do in this case, since Yu.ma and Imperial diversions are heaviest during the time of greatest average stream flow. Table I shows that the average river flow for the six months period from March thru August is 75% of the average yearly total. The average June flow is also seen to be 33% of this, or 25% of the yearly total. The final calculations as to the amount of loss attributable to each month is shown in Col.3, Table IV, Appendix. Table IV also gives a record of all river losses under ca Case I, and by subtractint ( or adding) these to the corr- . ected Yuma rec·o.rds from Table III, we obtain the reconstructed river at Black Canyon, Col.9• Since tha u.s.R.S. records only extend to 1902 those of Mr. LaRue in w.s.#556 were used for the period 1899-1903. These were for flow at Hardyville which is only 150 miles below the canyon and hence need correction only for upstream diversions. By now plotting the successive accumulations of the reconstructed river flow at B1ack Canyon one obtains the cumulati.ve mass curve shown in Plate I. This gives graphically the tonal mas s in acre-feet which has passed thru Black Canyon since the beginning of the record.The data from which this was plotted is in Col.7, Table IV. From this mass curve the reservoir regulation can be determined graphically for present conditions, as will be explained later. In order to determine what equated flow and power may be expected in the distant future another curve mus~ be plotted with corrections for further Upper Basin diversions and losses. The average of all reports in Exhj_bi t I shows an ul timate increase in irrigated area in the Upper Bas~n as 2,650,000 acres. This figure, and a water duty of 1.5 feet per acre, gives 3,925,000 acre-fe et additional diversion per year. The additional tra.nsmountain diversion is estimated at 360,000 acre-feet per year. The reports used, however, were for 1922, and so far all calculations used have be en based on 1930 co rrections, with the increase assumed as 250,000 acres between 1922 and 1930. Thus the additional diversion is ( 3,925,000 #360,000- 375,000) or 3,910,000 acre-feet per year. This is split into monthly diversions as shown in EXhibit III. The reason that less return flow will be realized in the future is that the majority of the new lands to be developed are at rrruch greater distance from the stream and any return is im• probable. With ultimate future diversions established the cumul• ative masses have been calculated and entered into Col.2, Table V. By subtracting these from the present mass at Black Canyon we obtain the net future mass that will probably exist at Black Canyon, Col.4,Table V. This has also been plotted on Plate I and is shown as a broken line of much less slppe than that for present conditions. USE OF :MASS DIAGRAM TO DETERMIN:F,J RIVER REGULATION. This is based upon the fact tbatb the slope of any line in the mass curve gives the, flow in second feet, if divided by the proper constant converting a cre-feet to second feet. Slope -- total ordinate __ acre-feet . . equals . total abeissae months • If we now d1v1de by 60 the number of second-feet continuous flow over the period is obtained. Thus with the mass diagram plotted, and by properly adjusting . to it a sloping straight line, a regulated flow is obtained which should satisfy all conditions neces sary to the operation of the reservoir for flood control, irrigation, and power. If during a low period of actual river flow it is desired to utilize the impounded waters to supplement this, the resulting flow is obt aine d graphically by adding to the end of the period of slack flow, Feb., 1905 or Mar. , 1906 on Pl. I, an ord i nat e equal in acre-feet to the portion of the reservoir capaci t y available f or tbis purpose . If a straight line is now drawn from the end of this ordinate tangent to the curve at tbe beginning of the low period the slope will equal the eqµated flow resulting from such regulation. At the point where the ordinate was constructed, of course , it was assumed that that much of the total capacity has been dravm off. The ordinat e was erected at the end of the period, however, and, from then on the rate of river f l ow becomes greater t han the slope of the straight line ; thus more is entering the reservoir than leaving. At the point where the continua tion of the straight line cuts the river 11. flow-curve the reservoir has been again filled t o the maximum level. Before actu ally attempting to plot t.he equated flow line it is nece ssary first to determine the amount of water in the reservoir at the be ginning of the period; the amount nece ssary to be kept ~bsolutely dry for flood control; and the minimum head allowable for the best power development. Bureau of Reclamation estimat es give eight years for the total construction period on the dam and appurtenant structures. Five years of this will be consumed in the erection of appurtenances and only thre e in the actual construction of the main mass of the dam. Thus water can stored during erection but for the last three years only. In or der to use the worst possible conditions a three year dry period was assumed to exist just previous to the completion of the dam in 1899, al tho this was not actually the case. The three year period was a ssumed the same as the worst of record, 1902-190 4, during which a total of only 26,45Q,OOO acre -fee t flowed. Under present conditions there are only 710, 000 acres under cul ti va.tion in the Lower Basin, including Mexico, with an average water duty of 3.5 feet per acre, or 7,455,000 acre-feet for the three ye ars . This would le a,re appr oximately 19 1 000,000 acre- fee t in storage at the end of the construction period if evaporation were neglected. In a recent communication from Mr .R.F.Walter, Chief engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation, he states that with the new heigth of dam now beine designed, . the upper 9,500,000 acrefeet is to be utilized for flood control. Si nce floods take almost a month to reach Black Canyon from upriver a ce rtai n percentage of this space can be use for power until a flood 12. notice is received, at which time the remainder of the flood volume can be emptied if necessary. The maximum flow which can be maintained and not disrupt the levee system is 75, 000 second-fe et. It has been determined from the mass diagram that the maximum equated flow is 24,000 second-feet for present conditions. Therefore, only 51.000 can be spilled from the flood control space. Allowing 40 days for this gives a maximum of ( 40 X 2 x 51,000) or 41 080, 000 acre-feet cleared. Thus if 5,000,000 acre-feet are always Clear this should be sufficient, since it takes about one moth for the flood crest to reach the canyon and perhaps several weeks more for the rest of the high water to follow. Thus, 25,000,000 acre-feet is the maximum useful volume for consetvation, since the new dam is designed to impound 30,000,000 acre-feet. The total raise in water surface is now to be 57 5 feet instead of 550 feet according to previous designs. For the best power development authorities state that a head lower than from 3/4 to 2/3 of the maximum should not be used. The maximum head here will of course be at the level of the 25,000,000 acre-foot volume, or 537 feet. The minimum head will be taken as .65 of the maximum or 349 feet (at t he 8,000,000 acre-foot level). During the latter part of both the present and future periods it was found that a greater flow could be realized, and for these portions of the diagram ~ minimum. head of 430 feet was used, or .80 of the maximum. This corresponds to a volume of 13,800,000 acre-feet. What is equivalent to plotting an ordinate equal to the useful reservoir volume at the end of the low-flow period is to make the straight line pf1_ss. under this point by an ordinate equal to the minimum allowable volume {8,000,000). This is possible since the difference in ordinates between the two curves shows the capacity in the reservoir at any one time. The curves of regulated flow are shown to, start at -19,000,000 acre-feet at the beginning of the period, since the reservoir contains that volume at that time.This straight line must then be ajusted so as to miss the lowest portion of the river-flow diagram by 8,000,000 acre-feet during the period 1899-1907, and by 13,800,000 for the remainder of the record. The same is true for Case II, or the flow under ultimate future conditions. By plotting a parallel straight line which is separated from the other by an ordinate osf 25,000,000 acre-feet, points can be determined showing when the reservoir is full or spilling. Wherever the mass curve of river-flow crosses the upper one for equated flow a point of spill has been reachea. These are shown as white areas on Plate I. The general trend of the curves for the period 1899-1907 is low and the equated flows found for Cases I and II are 18,250 a.nd 13,480 second-feet, respectively. For the remaj.n- der of the record a mtich higher flow is found possible, namely 24,000 18,500 second-feet, · respectively. Both of these flows are greater than would actually exist,,provided the caiculations were correct, since several corrections are necessary for evaporation, etc., as discussed later. Whether such a · change in the flow is justified will be discussed in Part II. 14. CORRECTIONS. To both regulated flows must be subtracted a correction for the period beginning in 1908. The correct diversions at Laguna Dam since its first use in 1908 were received from the Yuma office of the Bureau after after all tables had been completed, and at a time such as to make impossible the changing of all calculations. For the purpose of the study Laguna diversions were estimated by taking the correct 1929 figure and area ~ the corresponding~under cultivation, and assuming that previou di versions were in the same ratios of water to land as existed inl929. Thia could be done since the correct acreage figures were obtained from the report of the Secretary of the Interior for each year since 1908. The 1929,diversions, however, were about 5 times as much as needed for the area, since much was wasted and used for power along the canal system. This was a source of error which threw previous totals off considerably. Since receiving the correct from Mr. Priest, Superintendent at Yuma, it. was found that 7,700,000 acre-feet too much had been added to the flow over the period 1908-1930. Thus an average correction of 7,700,000 , or 490 is necessary 22 ><. 720 to all flow records subsequent to 1908. For all of Case I a correction must be made to the flow due to evaporation at Black Canyon. The average area exposed here will be 95,000 acres and an assumptiom of 3. 5 feet per acre per year has been used for evaporation in this area.fhe average correction in second-feet to be 4e.~e~) subtracted is 95, 000 ]( 3. 5 , or 460. 720 For Case II, unde r full development , it is assumed that all of the major reservoirs for complete river control have been finished, exposing an average surface area of 200,000 200, 000 x 3. 2 , or 720 970 second-feet continuous flow by evaporation. acres, or annually losing on the average Another source of loss as far as power is concerned may be the withdrawal by the Metropolitan Water District of South• ern California of its allowance of 1,500 second-feet. At present four . routes are under consideration by this group, three of which have headings below the dam. If either of these three are chosen the water will then of course be available for power. Since this item is still undecided at the time set for completion of this study, it will be assumed that withdrawals are to be below the dam and no correction is necessary as far as power calculations are concerned. If diversion should take piace above the dam an average a.nntinuous powe r loss of approximately 60,500 horse power would take place. LOWER BASIN IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS. The purpose for which the B1ack Canyon Dam is to be constructed is primarily flood control, then irrigation, and last for power development. If at any time a further drawdown is neces sary for irrigation tha~ that desired for the best power development, the former will govern as stated in the Boulder Canyon Act. In order to obtain as much revenue from power as possible, however, the regulation will prob ably always be such as to give maximum output,if possible. 16. In CASE I the minimum regulated flow obtained is more than necessary to satisfy the maximum irrigation demand below the dam. The maximum diversions are during June and JUly and are slightly less than 14% of the yearly total for each month. For Case I this amounts to 6,650 second-feet just for irrigation. If the Metropolitan Water District allotment is added to this it will total a little less than half the possible equated flow. Under ultimate future conditions, if sufficient water is obtainable, the maximum monthly diversion will be 14% of the yearly total for June and July, and 12% for May and August. Mr. M.J.Dowd has given a figure of 3.3 feet as the probable water duty when the river is regulated and sluicing, now necessary below, can be done away with. A duty of 3.5 Feet will be used here for safety on the assumption that some waste will be necessary. The ultimate acreage in the ~ower Basin, including Mexw ico, has been rather closely agreed upon by previously quoted authorities as 2,170,000 acres. In a recent communication from Mr.Dowd he states that surveys subsequent to the Bureau's last report show 315,000 additional acres irrigable in the Pilot Knob, West Side Mesa, and Coachella areas, bringing the grand total to 2,485,000 acres. The diversion required for this,at an average water duty of 3.5,feet would be 8,700,000 a~e-feet annually just for irrigation; or 200,000 acrepfeet more than has been allotted to the entire Lower Basin. 0 On the assumption, for the pre s ent, that 8,000,000 acrefeet of this amount might be obtained from the reservoir, the maximum required flow in June and- July would be 8,000,000 X.14 60 or 18,700 second-feet plus the l, 500 to the District. The maximum flow obtained in Case II thru the dry period was 12,510 second-feet after correcting. This flow would of course be insufficient,but the Bureau contemplates building a reregulating reservoir at either Bull's Head or Mojave after finishing the Black Canyon Dam. ~f this is done the 12,510 secondfeet is just sufficient -to supply a yearly total of 9,000,000 acre-feet to the Lower Basin, or 8,000,000 for irrigation and 1,000,000 for the District. The assumption of a reregulating dam downstream is used in this study and the 12, 510 aecondf oot flow utilized for power. POWER COMPUTATIONS. It seems that under both present and future conditions the flows determined from the mass curves are sufficient to - take care of the allowable .................irrigation demand below the dam. The average head obtainable each month is directly related to the volume which is the difference between the ord- . inates of the demand curve and the stream-flow curve.This could be picked right off the graph, but would not be as accurate, since the scale is necessarily small, as making actual subtractions of the two values. This latter was done for each month, al tho 6t ia not shown in the tables. By knowing the volume in the reservoir at any time one can obtain the head by reading the chart on Plate III, the capacity-head curve for Black Canyon. These heads are listed in Col.l, Table VI. 18. The so-called "primary power 11 listed in this table was based upon the constant flow obtained and an efficiency of 80% thru the conduits and turbines. This reduces to a formula: H.P.- - Q, H e 11 The so-cal.led "spilled power" is that which may be obtain• from the water which must be. dumped above the 537 foot level for flood control.The volume ordinates shown each month between the upper demand line and the mass diagram of river flow do not truly represent that spilled for that month. The quantity spilled one month takes that n:a.ich awa; from the value shown for the succeeding month, since it has already been passed down the river. Therefore, the length of the white areas on Plate I.do mot represent the number of months in which spil• takes place, since all of it has really passed out of the reservoir at the maximum ordinate of these areas. Spilled power is calculated by assuming that the quantity is dumped continuously over that month. Spilled H.P. equals .833 volume in acre-feet. The actual definition of primary, or firm. H.P. is the maximum which can be guarenteed over any period.and is of course a constant. Spilled, or secondary, is actually any above the primary and.consequently.is usually sold at a cheaper figure to customers who can use steam standby at times when this powervis not obtainable. Therefore, the headings used in the tables are :misnbmers according to these definitions. For purposes of this study primary is that which potentially exists at the reservoir during any month which is not derived from spilled water. The actual primary h.p. that can be guarenteed according to the data obtained is shown by heavy black lines on the chart, Plate II, and has different values for different periods both in Case I and II. The Bureau assumes a load factor of 55% and a maximum installed capacity of 1,000,000 h.p., making 550,000 firm h.p. desirable. From the charts, Plate II, it is seen that the minimum primary power obtainable is 420,000 h,p. during a future dry period similar to that of 1902-190~. 'J.'his is the absolute minimum of course, and by in,_ creasing the flow or using some steam standby a much higher value for firm h.p. can be obtained. The absolute minimum for the same period under present conditions is 550,000 h.p. and this is only for a very short period. For the remainder of the record much higher values are of course obtainable if necessary altho the maximum plant output will only be 1,000,000 h.p. A value as high as 2,915,000 h.p. from spilled water was obtained for one month. In the case where the full 550,000 h.p. cannot be developed the flow could be stepped up so as to utilize the reregulator to the maximum, then when the reservoir began to fill more rapidly again and more power potentially existed than was needed, the flow could be cut in order to eave as m ; much water as possible for a future dry period. 20. PART II CONCLUSIONS. The subject of river reconstruction is one with which much fault may ·be found. Many assumptions must of course be made as in a variety of engineering problems, but by playing well enough on the safe side the final outcome should be o one upon which a fair degree of reliance may be placed.It is a case of, especially with the Colorado, doing the best and doing it now. The use of only a thirty year stream flow record of course widens the possibility for error in making calculations for future useage.and output, since this is a relatively short period in which long, previous dry spells may not have repeated themselves. Altho the three dry years 190.21904 give a fair indication of what may be expected at some later date, such a period may be only half as long. Altho the mass curve may show that the reservoir can be operated at a certain constant flow until a minimum volume is reached at which time the inflow will increase, a fu:bure dry spell might be long enmugh to practically dry the reservoir. Of course for a proper regulation the flow would be continually out down as the dangerous level was reached, and the the possibility of greater flow from upstream looked scarce. If it becames necessary to almost dry the reservoir in order to supply the irrigation demand below, the power would suffer considerably, and the industries being supplied 2J.. from B1ack Canyon accordingly. Altho the average over a fut• ure 31 year period may be the same as for the one studied, the relative length of wet and dry spells may be entirely different. Assume, for instance, that a far-future dry period of six years duration ocurred with the same yearly average as in 1902-1904. This would give an approximate total flow into the reservoir of 54,000,000 acre-feet under present fpper Basin conditions •. Under future oondi tions they will probably divert 3,910,000 more per year, or a total of 23,400,000 during the 6 year period. This may be possible since the Boulder Canyon Act only requires 75,000,000 to be sent down in a 10 year perio.d. Thus there would be left for the Lower Basin, assuming an originally full reservoir, 56,600,000 acre-feet for the 6 years. Allowing only 6 800,000, or 4,200,000 to the Water District, leaves 51,800,000 for irrigation, or enough for 2,46$,000 acres at a duty of 3.5 feet. This is approxinJately the estimated total for the future. Thus it can be seen that an extremely long dry period would be nec• cssary before great harm can be done in the Lower Basin. Before this takes place the Upper Basin would also have to beginsacrificing in order to help. Even with no flow from upstream the reservoir capacity would supply the Metropolitan Water District and the total acreage below thw dam for a period of 2 years and 9 months. Thus it is apparent that altho the present record may be quite different from future flow records for the same period of years, it gives a fairly safe indication of what may be expected. 22. The possibility of regulating to different flows in wet and dry cycles seems justifi·ed, altho it is impossible to tell in advance when the entry is made into a particular cycle. It was of course possible for p~~t flows but futures are more or less unpredictable, altho a fair indication may be had from a residual mass cirve of past records. Ir then after an accurate attempt at predicting it is thot a •~Y wet period is comung on,and the reservoir is constantly spilling, the prev• ious equated flow can be stepped up. If it becomes apparent that the year is only a wet one in the dry cycle the flow out can be cut down again before the dangerous level has been reached. BLACK CANYON DAM SITE, WHERE THE BOULDER DAM WILL BE CONSTRUCTED THE BILL PROVIDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN PASSED THE SENATE ON DECEMBER 14, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON DECEMBER 18, AND WAS APPROVED BY PRESIDENT COOLIDGE ON DECEMBER 21, 1928 ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HON. ROY 0. WEST, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR E. C. Finney, First Assistant Secretary; John H. Edwards, Assistant Secretary; E. 0. Patterson, Solicitor of the Interior Department; E. K. Burlew, Administrative Assistant to the Secretary W a,h/ngton, D. C. Elwood Mead, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation Miss M. A. Schnurr, Secretary to the Commissioner George C. Kreutzer, Director of Reclamation Economics P. W. Dent, Assistant Commissioner Hugh A. Brown·, Assistant Director of Reclamation Economics C. A. Bissell, Chief of Engineering Division W. F. Kubach, Chief Accountant C. N, McCulloch, Chief Clerk Denoer, Colorado, Wilda But/dint R. F. Walter, Chief Engineer; S. 0. Harper, General Superintendent of Construction; J . L. Savage, C hief Designing Engineer: E. B. Debler, Hyd rographlc Engineer; L. N. McClellan, Electrical Engineer; C . M. Day, Mechanical Engineer; Annand Offutt, District Counsel; L. R. Smith, Chief Clerk; Harry Caden, Fiscal Agent C. A. Lyman, Fiscal Inspector. District counsel Project Office Superintendent Chief clerk Fiscal a~e nt Name Office Belle Fourche ___ ___ ___ _ Newell, S. Dak_ _____ _ F. C. Youngbl utt.-- . . J.P. Siebeneicller. -- . .J . .I'. ~id)l'ncicher. ____ Wm . J. Burke ______ __ M itchell, Nebr . Boise 1_ ---- ---- - ---- -- · Boise, Idaho __ ______ __ R. J. Newell __ _____ --· W. L. Vernon_-- --- -- · ------- ----·-----·- ·--· I B. E. Stouta myer. ___ _ Portland , Oreg Carlsbad ___ _____ ___ ____ Carlsbad , N . Mex ____ _ L. E. Foster ______ ____ W. C . Berger ... -- ---- w. C. Ber~er. ___--·_· H.J. S. Devries _____ __ E l Paso, Tex. Grand Valley---------· Grand Junction, Colo . J.C. Pag•------------ W. J. Chiesman .. ---- · \\'. J. C hiesman ___ ___ J. R. Ale,andeL------ l\fontrose, Colo. Huntley•----- -- ------· Ballantine, Mont. ___ _ E. E . Lewis ___ _______ _ _______________________ _ . ______ __________ ___ _ ___ ______________________ _ King HUI•---------·--· King Hill, Idaho ____ __ Klamath _________ ______ K lamath Falls, Oreg_ . ~-- r:i.~~!:t .·_·_-_-_·_·_ : 1 Joseph C . AverY .. R. J. Coffey ........ _.. Berkeley, Calif. Lower Yellowstone _____ Savage, Mont __ ______ _ Billings, Mont . 1 1 0 MUk River_ ___ ____ ___ _, Malta, Mont ______ ___ _ ~ ~-~~:: -~-·_!f10~. Do. Minidoka•--- - - ------ - Burley, Idaho ________ _ E . n. Darlington __ ____ G . C. Patterson _____ __ M iss A. J. Larson _____ I B. E. Stoutamyer. ____ Portland, Oreg . Newlands '- - ---- ----- · Fallon, Nev .. _________ A. W. Walker_______ _ ·---- -- ----- -- -- ---- - -- Miss E .M.Simm ond s. R. J. Coffey ____ ______ _ Berkeley, Calif. North Platte'--- --- · --· Mitchell, Nebr _____ __ _ H . C_. Stetson _______ __ I Virgil E. HubbeiL.-- - Virgil E. Hubbell__ __ _ Wm. J . Burke .... ___ _ Mitchell, Nebr. Okanogan __ ____ ____ __ __ Okanogan, Wash ____ __ Calvm Casteel_ ______ _ --- -- ----------- ·---·--- N. D. Thorp __ ___ __ __ _ B. E. Stoutamyer_ ___ _ Portland, Oreg. Orland___________ ___ __ _ Orland, Calif._ __ . ___.. , R. C . E . Weber .... -- - C. ll. Lillingston ______ C . H. Lillingston ___ .. . R. J. CofleY.-- -------- Berkeley, Callt. Owyhee ______________ __ Nyssa, Oreg __________ _ F. A. Banks _____ ----· H. N . Bickel.. .. .... .. Frank P . Greene .. ... _ B . E. Stoutamyer ___ __ Portland, Oreg . Rio Grande___ ____ ___ _ E l Paso, Tex _____ ___ __ L. R. Fiock ______ ________ _________ __ --- - ---- -- L. ~- Kennicott.. ___ __ H. J. S. Devries __ ___ __ El Paso, T ex. Riverton_______ ____ __ __ Riverton, Wyo __ ___ ___ li . D . Comstoc k_ ____ _ R . B. Smith .... ------ R. B . Smith __________ Wm . J. Burke ____ __ __ Mitchell, Nebr. Salt Ri ver•------- -- --· Phoenix, Ariz ________ _ C. 0 . Cragin ______ ____ .. _________ __ ___ _..... _. .. · ------- ______________ . -----------·-·- ___ ___ __ Shoshone•---- - -- - ---- · Powell, Wyo _________ _ L, H. MitchelL. .. -- .. W . F Sha __________ __ -- ---------------- ---·-- E. E. Roddis _____ __ __ Billings, Mont. Strawberry Valley •---· Payson, Utah _________ _ Lee R. Taylor_ _____ __ · -------------------- --- · - · --· · -- ----- - --------- ·--------------- -------Do. Sun Ri ver " ------- ·-- · B'airfleld , Mont. _____ _ 0. 0. Sanford _________ H. W. Joh nson .. _.... . li. W. Johnson ........ E. E. Roddis ____ ____ _ till {Irrigon, Oreg ________ _ U ma a 11 -- -- -- - --- -- · Hermiston, Oreg ____ _ A. C. Eloughtou _______ ·---------------·-- ----- . ·--- ---------- ·-·--·-- -------------- - -------- Enos D. Martin---- .. · ---------- -------- ----- ·--- -----------· ------- · ·- ·- -- -------------- -· -Uncompahgre __ ________ Montrose, Colo ______ _ L. J . Foster. __________ G. H. Bolt ____________ F. D. Helm .. . .. . _-- - J . R . AlexandeL ------ Montrose, Colo. Vale -- -- --- ---- - --- -- · Vale, Oreg _________ ___ IT. W. Bashore __ ______ C. M. Voyen ____ __ -- - C. M. Voyen _________ B. E. Stoutamyer. ___ _ P ortl8nd, Oreg. Yakima _________ ____ __ _ Yak ima, Wash._ .... -- P. J . Preston .... ·- ---- R. K . Cunningham --- J.C. Gawler. _________ j_____ do ___ ______ __ ____ _ Do. Yuma._ _____ ____ __ ____ Yuma, Ariz _______ ___ _ R. M. Priest. .. _______ H . R. Pasewalk _____ __ F.. M . Philebaum __ __ _ H.J. Coffey ___ __ __ __ __ Berkeley, Csllf. ~C<i\viieeier:::::::: lL t·. rib~:~n:::::::: II:~: 31~'b1'cft~ '.~'-a-~~:. l ~: ~1ha"tti~ ----1 -~~'.s_._-_::::::: 1 l~rge Comtruction Wor~ Salt Lake Basin, Echo Dam. Kittitas. _____________ _ Sun River, Gibson Dam. Coalville, Utah ___ ____ F. F. Sm ith"------- -- C. F. Williams._ -- __ __ C. F . Williams ___ ____ J. R. Alexander. _____ _ Montrose, Colo. Ellensburg, Wash _____ Walker R. Young"--· E. R. Mills-- ------- -- ---- - ----- ----------- -- B . E . Stoute myor ___ __ l Portland, Oreg. ·'"ugusta, Mont_ ______ Ralph Lowry"·------ , F. C. LewLs_ ... -- ... .. F . C. Lewis __________ _ R. E. Rodd1s _____ ___ _ Bilangs, Mont . 1 Operation of Arro wrock Division assumed by Nampa-Mezidian, Black Can yo n, Boise-Kuna, Wilder, Big Bend, and New York Irrigation Di3tricts on Apr. I, 1926. 1 Operation of project assumed by Huntley P roject Irrigation District on Dec. 31,1927. 1 Operation of project assumed by Kin~ Hill Irrigation District Mar. 1, 1926. • Operation of South Side Pumping Division assumed by Burley Irrigation District on Apr. 1, 1926, and of Gra vity Division by Minidoka Irrigation District on Dec . 2, 1916. 1 Operotlon of project assumed by Truckee- Carso n Irrigation District on Dec. 31, 1926. 1 Operation of Interstate Division assumed by P athfinder Irrigation District on July 1, 1g20, Fort Laramie Division by Goshen Irrigation District and Gering and Fort Laramie Irrigation District on Dec. 31, 1926, and Northport Division by Northport Irrlgotlon District on Dec. 31, 1926. 1 Operation of project assu med by Salt River Valley Water Users' Association on Nov. 1, 1917. • Operation of Garland Division assumed by Shoshone Irrigation Dlatrict on D ec. 31, 1926. • Operation of project assumed by Strawberry Water Users' Association on Dec. I, 1926. "Operation of Fort Shaw Division assumed by Fort Shaw Irrigation District on Dec. 31, 1926. n Operation of West Division assumed by West Extens!on Irrigation DIBtrlct on July 1, 1926, and East Division by H ermiston Irrigation District Informally on July 1, 1926, and formally, by contract, on Dec. 31, 192G. 11 Construction engineer. Important Inot.lt/gatiom in Progrt.u Project Office In charge of- Heart Mountoin in vestigations _____ _________ ________ ____ ______ _ Powell. Wyo--------- · I. B. Hosig .. --- ------ · Utah investigations--------- -- ----------- -- --- -- -- -- ----- ---- -- Salt Lake City, Utah __ E. 0 . Larson __ ________ State of Utah. 'T'rnckee River in vr.sti~ations---------------------------- - ---·- Fa llon . Nev __________ A. W. Walker. _____ __ Yakima project ex tensions ___ ____________ ______ ___--- - -· ___ ___ Yak ima, \\·a s!L . . .. ___ P. J. Preston ____ ____ _ Cooperati~e agenry PART III APPENDIX TABLE I COLORADO RIVER DISCHARGE AT YUMA ~uantities in Thousands Acre-Feet Jan Feb Mar Apr Jun Jul I Aug 1902 229 220 301 368 2211 2530 770 257 Year 1903 185 183 368 819 1957 3117 2228 \ \ , Total Sep Oct Nov Dec 227 264 249 249 7,959. 598 4-06 519 321 267 10,969. 721 366 275 10,109. 1905 450 1560 3107 2250 2593 4550 1864 744 386 494 714 947 19,711 1906 530 1562 1935 3323 5009 2395 1173 699 720 575 1138 19,484. 1907 1320 1040 1480 2100 2330 5640 5930 2310 1280 836 643 458 25,467. 389 817 990 1060 1670 2550 2000 1490 678 585 481 978 1909 616 772 976 1605 3324 6240 4897 2509 2889 861 562 517 1910 1158 509 1499 1710 3473 2798 904 591 367 429 467 427 13, 688. 1911 1904 224 218 May I 422 368 480 1700 2600 1412 1054 691 It 1908 25,968. 14, 333. 541 743 1068 1214 2765 3819 3083 1131 530 1757 722 465 17, 839. 423 !88 1253 2508 6397 2867 1397 582 677 699 403 18,358. 523 634 472 393 11,788. 591 840 611 818 20, 654. 442 356 354 14, 643. 1916 2637 1615 2201 2118 3363 3539 2258 1675 736 1636 707 454 22,940. 465 422 420 20. 610. 473 479 451 13,145. 231 398 543 1224 222120431242 654 307 325 605 701 2188 1112 1211 2842 7690 2647 1080 501 4-00 619 427 408 824 814 2670 6608 2816 2162 1097 551 447 800 598 997 1138 3437 5816 1945 742 524 239 326 327 321 540 1077 2875 5071 2617 1514 1271 736 828 785 481 520 1316 2563 3196 1123 288 184 244 369 213 350 530 1092 1782 2498 1742 739 1210 1150 677 3i6 288 446 1410 2776 3560 141'7 536 260 438 2~5 2 0 1070 719 959 2990 3450 2670 913 1800 10 50 7 2 396 445 548 803 3270 3830 1568 539 248 398 444 223 268 678 1430 2720 4700 2100 2115 1480 935 464 944 452 636 455 665 352 474 45.9 402 292 361 10, 740. 21,446. 19, 464. 17,019. 17, 844. 11,421. 12,457. 12,201. 17,095 12,781. 17, 474. 1912 331 238 337 558 1523 2398 2827 1303 580 1914 462 645 923 1364 3308 6575 3168 1350 1913 1915 563 1505 951 1789 294128931897 1917 562 1918 405 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 440 685 270 603 1565 3030 5350 5775 1442 536 322 1008 766 1787 3675 2660 710 406 u.s.R.s.nata. TABLE II GILA RIVER DISCHARGE. Thousands Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1152 1903 1905 188 680 1022 768 299 43 422 122 4 1906 136 167 576 1907 141 57 260 1908 391 162 1909 72 175 147 96 1910 213 9 2 1911 35 20 l 57 16 l 118 17 1915 139 694 320 1916 2093 690 747 1913 1917 163 Dec 16. 42 33 6 l 3 4 11 270 90 58 25 95 44 54 81 Tatal 226. 375 3, 667. 1,459. 623 13 404 l, 097. 661. 224. 12 30 222. 17 2 25 231 74 389 367 16 559 83 132 448 27 3 2 25 2 21 2 12 243 17 1919 12 24 19 60 3 1920 40 424 190 108 15 1921 23 8 1922 330 82 164 34 3 1923 17 1924 317 1925 1926 1 1927 36 1928 1929 5 22 95 5 2 30 2 228 116 415 23 21 11 10 10 356 222 53 27 82 54 341 3 329. 9 41 2l 188 306 739. 9 13 801. 15 6 42 478. 52 672. 224 429. 376. 78. 357. 633. 23. 5. 7 2 65 2 4,494. 1,154. 52 42 553. l, 951. 71 243 1918 9 Nov 14 35 70 Oct 5 140 21 14 83 121 1912 Sep l 1904 1914 July Aug acre-feet. 54 3 10 61 83 2 45 2 u.s.R.s. Data ,. TABLE III R~COlTS~L~lJCTIC1l!" o~r })LlV~TL1 ~ro 1930 FOl{ Pi\.S~r ])}~}JJJ:iTI O}T I]} LT.?J?~J1 J.1!;.sI}T Guantities acre-fe et . -in t~ousands ····- ·-- --- · -· ':-:' o tal Correction Hardy- · Ea,rd.y-. 1929- To tal vill s FlOVV' Fl ovr Correct ,, Y. ear}':on th 1399 J F 11 ~ ..t:il A M J J A s ~ N D ':~ otal 19 00 J F M A 85. 5 }IT 1 71. 0 23 5. 0 '>.8 5 . 0 1 71 . 0 b7.G -5 7.0 J J A s 0 J,:r., .. 23 . 5 _,3 3 . 0 610 A. - 30 . 5 - :jo. 5 0 91.5 18 3 . 0 305 .0 ;50 5 . 0 1 3 ~) . 0 D 1 901 J Ji' vr A ].ft J J' A s N D 'i' otal 1902 J F H A J½.Lr J J A 0 N n ' 61.0 <51 . 5 -31 . 5 946 . 0 C,5 0 A. --;32. 5 --3 2. 5 0 97 .5 195 .0 :.3 25 .0 ;3 25. 0 J..95 . 0 L165.0 -65.0 -32.5 - 3), . 5 Total ];008,0 -26.5 - 26-..-5 - +62 . 5 +62 . 5 79.5 159.0 265 . 0 265 .0 159 .0 53.0 -53 . 0 - 26.5 -26 . 5 821 .5 1 87.5 386 . 0 6 99 .7 662.8 391.0 134 . 6 +117.0 + 59.3 + 62 . 5 2098 .5 -2 8 .5 -28.5 + 60.5 + 60.5 0 ' -30.5 -30 .5 -- Gl. O 0 I 85. 5 171. 0 2i~5. 0 285.0 l 71. 0 57 . 0 -57.0 -28 . 5 ! -28 . 5 8 d3.0 ... 0,3 . 5 . 'f o t ctl s . -.--·· -··· Irrigation TransDiversion mountain Diversion b30 A. . -26.5 -26 . 5 '± 0 79.5 159.0 265 .0 265 .0 159 . 0 53 . 0 --53.0 -26 .5 -26 . 5 2,21 . 5 5 70 A. -20 . 5 -23 . 5 0 ! 91.5 183. 0 ;.50 5. 0 305 . 0 ' l i33. 0 i 61.0 I 61. 0 l -31. 5 i -31. 5 : 946.0 ! ! ' ' I i 0 HH . 5 3'74.0 6 '79. 7 642 .8 379.0 130. 6 +113.0 + 5 7.3 + 60.5 -Z0.)7.0 + 58.5 ' .5 ' + 58 ·O i 17:5.5 ' 362.E) 659.7 622.8 36 '7.9 126.6 +109.0 i:;i:; ' + :Jv • ~) 58 .5 + ' 1 S3 '14. 0 ~ I I 600 . 0 70 0 . 0 700 . 0 3,000.0 4,000 . 0 5,000.0 4,000.0 ' 400.0 ' 400. 0 400.0 ' 400.0 400 . 0 20,000.0 662 . 5 762 . 5 700 . 0 2,812.5 3,614.0 4,300 . 3 3,337.2 9. 0 265~4 51 7·. 0 459.3 462. 5 17,901.5 600.0 700.0 700.0 3,000.0 4,000.0 5,000.0 3,000.0 400 .0 200.0 200.0 100.0 100.0 18 ,0 00 .0 660 . 5 760.5 700.0 2, SH3. 5 3,626.0 4,320.2 2,35? . 2 21. 0 69.4 ' 313 . 0 ' 157.3 i 160. 5 :15,963 . 0 300.0 300 . 0 400.0 1,500.0 2,500.0 2,500 . 0 1,500.0 400 . 0 400 . 0 400.0 40 0 . 0 400.0 11,0 00 .0 : ..~32. 5 0 1 69 .5 350 . 0 ' 639. 7 602 .8 355.0 i 122 . 6 ! +105.0 + 53.3 + 56.5 l,<JOB. O 1,912. o 9,000, 0 97.5 195.0 325.0 325.0 195.0 65.0 -65.0 - 32 .5 I I ; 358 .5 358 .5 400 .0 1, 2524 . 5 2,138 .0 1, 840 . ±i i 13 77.0 33 .0 I I I i ' 273 . 4 509.0 455 . 3 458 . 5 9 ,026. 0 ' 300.0 300.0 400. 0 1, 000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 1, 00,).0 400.0 400 . 0 400 .0 400 .0 400.0 -32.5 -32 . 5 ·- ; I i ' i + 56.5 + 56 .5 i i 356 . 5 356.5 40 0 .0 830.5 1,650.0 1,360 .0 397.0 45.0 27'7.4 505.0 453.3 456.5 • • •- -- l 1 I i ,_ ,•••• -•• •A •--..; 'l 088.0 '' TABLE III RECONST RUCTI ON OF RIV'~R TO 1930 FOR PAST DEPLETION nr UPPER BASI1'J" 0.uan ti +iec• in tbou. c•ands a c re-fee-'-I., u ,::, ' 0 '•T - ea r- Irrigation T!onth Diversiom 1903 J F ]' [ A J\J J J A s 0 N D 700 A. - 35 .0 - 35.0 0 105.0 21 0 . 0 350 .0 350 .0 210. 0 70 . 0 - 70.0 - 35 . 0 - 3r=) . 0 To t a l 1,0 35.0 1 9QL1 J 750 A. - 37.5 - 37.5 0 11 2 . 5 225 . 0 37 5 .0 375 .0 2 25. 0 ?5. 0 - ?5.0 - 3 7. 5 F } ,T. A M J J 'A s 0 N D - ~) ?. 5 To t a l 1,1 63 . 0 1 905 8 00 A. - 40 . 0 - 40 .0 0 1 20 . 0 240 . 0 400 . 0 40 0 . 0 240 . 0 80 . 0 - 80 . 0 - 40 . 0 - 40 . 0 1,240 . 0 J Ii' M A I'I J J A s r. '.J 1'~ .c•l 1J Total Transmoun tain Diver s ion Tot a l ·- ~ Cor rection 1 9 29- To t a l 6 Yu.ma Yum a Flow Flo \"! Cor:rect ed 6 U.B. R.S. - ,I; (34 . 0 54 00 35 . 0 35.0 0 105.0 210. 0 350 . 0 350 . 0 21 0 . 0 70 . 0 - 70 . 0 - 35 .0 - 35 . 0 1 , 085 . 0 l, 8~55 . 0 - + ,-7 0 ...... . + 51. 5 0 1 54 . 5 320 . 0 - 37 . 5 3 ?.5 0 162. 0 32 5 . 0 61 1±. 7 1 5 77. 8 .3 40 . 0 1 1 7. 6 .,.' 1 00 . 0 + 50 . 8 + 5,1: . 0 nV 112.5 2') 5 . 0 Zi75 . 0 3 75.0 ?25 . 0 7.5 . 0 - ?5 . 0 - 37 . 5 - 'i- 3 ?.5 ~ o.....l 52, 9 e 7 :552. ,S 325 . 0 112 . c + 95 . 0 + 48 . 3 J_ ' 51 • 5 1,1 63 . 0 l, 757.0 - ,'10 . 0 - 40 . 0 + + 0 120. 0 2 40 . 0 . 10 0 . 0 110 0 . 0 240 . 0 - eo.o 80 . 0 40 . :J 40 . 0 1,2 40 . 0 tJ'J . O 49.0 0 1'17. 0 305 . 0 5CA . '7 52 7. S 31 0 . O 107.6 + 90 . 0 + 45 . 8 + 49 . 0 l, 6UO. O L :5 . 4 18 2.5 367 .7 EH9 . 2 1 , 953 .0 3,'1170 0 2, 223 . 0 598 . 4 406 . 1 513.5 321. 3 266.6 1 0 , 'J68 . 6 239 . 4 236.5 36 7.? 657 . 3 1 , 623 . 0 2,5 02 . 3 1, 646 . 3 25 8 . 4 28 8 . 5 61 8 . 5 372 . 1 ~'520. 6 9 ,1 33 . 6 2 23 .6 217 . 8 36 7. 7 479 . 7 1,699 . 6 2,5 99 .5 1, 41 2 . 0 1,0 54 .0 691.5 722 .0 366.0 275.3 10,108 . 8 2'1$ .1 269.3 36 7. 7 325 . 2 1,379. 6 2,0 09.13 8 59 . 2 729 .l 5 78 . 9 49 9 . 9 1,56 0 . 4 3 ,107 . 4 2 , 250.6 2 , 59 3.0 4 ,5 50 . 5 1, 863 .7 74 4.l 38 6 .5 494 . 2 71 11 0 946 . 8 19 , 711 . 1 548 . 9 1,60 9 . 4 3,107. 4 2, 10 3 . 6 2,288.0 3 , 985 . 8 1,335. 9 434 . l 2 78 . 9 584.2 75 9 . 8 995.8 1 3 ,0 31 . 1 0 817 . o 41 4 . 3 326. 8 8 , 351. 8 'l'.i\..I'3LJ£ I I I RECOUSTRUCTION OJ? RIV.ER TO 1930 1', 0R PAST DEPLETION HJ UPPER BASIN Quantities in thoµ sands r1cre-feet w -" • •· Year- Irrigation Trans- Month Diversion moun tain Diversion 1 906 850 A. 42.5 42 .5 0 127.0 255.0 425.0 425 .0 255.0 85.0 85 .0 42.5 42.5 1,318.0 J F 11 A M J J A s 0 1:T D Total 1907 J F NL A 1,n: J J A s 0 N D Total 1908 J F 111 A ];I J J A s 0 lJ D Total Total - - 900.A. 45.0 45.0 0 13 5 .0 270 . 0 450.0 450.0 270.0 90.0 - 9 0 .0 - 45 .0 - 45.0 1,395 .0 1.0 42.5 0 1~~7.0 255.0 425.0 425.0 255.0 · f3 5.0 - 85.0 42.5 - ,1.2 5 1,319.0 - 2,0 45.0 45.0 0 13 5 .0 270.0 450 . 0 450 . 0 270.0 90.0 90.0 45.0 LL "I r-=; '.Flo w u.s.R.s. Corrected + + 1,320. 0 1,36 4. 0 1,040.0 1,084 . 0 1,480. 0 1, 48 0. 0 2 ,1 00.0 1, 9 6 8 . 0 2,330 . 0 2,055. 0 5,640.0 5,125.3 5,930.0 5,4 5 2. 2 2,310. 0 2 ,000. 0 1,380. 0 1 , 28 4.2 8 36. 0 916.J 64 3. 0 68 3. 3 4 58 .0 502 . 0 25,467.0 23,942.0 44 . 0 4 -L 0 0 132. 0 275.0 :514. 7 4,77 . f3 2J 0.0 + + 1, 4 ?8. 0 Yuma Flow 42 ~ . 4 46 8 . 9 530 . 5 5 7'7. 0 1,562.1 1,562. o 1, 79 4 . 6 1,934.6 3,323 .7 3,03:37.0 4,4 70. 5 5,009 .7 2,3 9 3.3 1, 8 92. 0 f3 79. J 1,173. 9 ·69 8 . 6 596.4 8 0 5.0 720.0 57Ci .6 6l c~- . 9 ' 1.137.7 1,18 4. 0 1 9 ,48 4 . 0 17,882. 0 - - n Yuma 46.5 46.5 0 140.0 290. 0 539 .2 294 . 5 ( 102.6 502 . G + 3 5. 0 + 43.3 + 46 . 5 1,602.0 1,397.0 Ll., ,_; l~ 47.5 47.5 0 142,5 285.0 47:5.0 47'.::,,0 235,0 95.0 - 95 . 0 - 47.5 3 .0 + + 97. 6 80 . 0 J_ 40 . 8 + 44. 0 1, 525,0 - - - 4?.5 - - 950 A, 45 . 5 - 47 ,5 0 142.5 285.0 475, 0 475,0 285.0 95 . 0 9 5.0 - 47 , 5 4 7. 5 1,475.0 19 29 - 'l 'otal - 0. 5 0.2 0.1 0.2 Correction, + I 41 . 5 41,5 0 124 . 5 260 . 0 439 .7 4 52.G 265.0 92 . 6 + 75.0 + ~~8 . 2 + 41.5 1, 44 5.0 ;53 9 . 0 4 ~5 0. 5 853 . 5 9 90 . 0 990 , 0 1,060. 0 9 3 5 ,5 1, fi ?O. O 1,410. 0 ?,,550.0 2,060.3 2 , 00 0 . 0 1,547.2 1, 49 0. 0 1,225. 0 6 78. 0 58 5. ~l; 58 5 . 0 66 0. 0 48 1 .0 519.3 9 78 . 0 L 019. 2 13,6 8B .O 12,243.0 '.n 7. o TA'3Ll~ III RECONSTRUCTI ON OJ? RIV}S:R TO 1 930 :Y1 0R PAST DEPL}~T IOl\T nr UPPER :T-3ASI '.i: f ~uantities in th ous a nds a c re- f eet . ; -•.: ear - Irriga ti on Tra,n s - F onth Diversion moun ta i n Dj_versi o:n J_9 0 9 J F l , 00J A. M 0 Ai M J J A s 0 N D Total 1910 J F J[ A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1 911 J F l'J A ' .- l\J.!. J J A s 0 N D Total - To t a l 150 . 0 300 . 0 500 . 0 500 . 0 300.0 100 . 0 1 00 . 0 - 50.0 - 50 . 0 1, 550 . 0 - 1040 A. - 52.0 52.0 0 156 . 0 31 2 . 0 5200 0 520.0 312.0 104. 0 10 4 . 0 52 . 0 52 . 0 1,610 . 0 3.0 - - 1080 A. 54 . 0 54.0 0 1 62 . 0 324 . 0 540 . 0 5 40 . 0 324.0 108 . 0 104 . 0 54. 0 - 54 . 0 1,675 . 0 4. 0 - - 5. 0 Ytmm 'j'l 0 \7 1 929 -Tot a l - 50 . 0 50. 0 Cor r ection . Yum a, J?l 0 ·1n u. s. R.s. Cor r ect ed 61 5 . 7 7?2 . 8 975 . 1 1,805 . 0 3;5324. 7 6 , 240 . 0 4 , 896 . 9 2,50 5 . 8 2 , 888 . 6 86 0. 8 561. 9 51 7 .l 25 , 967 . 6 654 . 7 s 11 . s 975 . 1 l , 68 E3 . 0 3 , 079 . 7 5,775 . 8 4 , 469 . 1 2,258 . 5 2,801 . 0 930 , 8 597 . '7 556 .1 24 , 597 . 6 .. 50 . 0 50 . 0 0 150 . 0 300.0 500 . 0 50 0 . 0 300 . 0 100 . 0 1 00 . 0 50 . 0 50 . 0 1,550 . 0 0 1 17 . 0 245 . 0 46 4 . 7 427 . 8 250 . 0 8 7. 6 + 70 . 0 + 35 . 8 + 39 . 0 1,370 . 0 - - + 39 . 0 + 39 . 0 52 . 0 52 . 0 0 156 . 0 31 2. 0 520 . 0 520 . 0 312 . 0 1 04 . 0 104 . 0 52 . 0 52 . 0 1, 610 . 0 + + 37 . 0 37 . 0 0 1 11 . 0 2 33 . 0 444 , 7 407 . 8 2 39 . 0 8 3. 6 + 66 . 0 + 33 . 8 + 37 . 0 1, 31 0 . 0 1,1 58 . 8 1 ,1 95 . 0 508 . 6 545 . 6 1 , 498 . 7 1 , 49 8 . 7 1,71 0 . 0 1,59 9 . 0 3 , 472 . 5 3 , 239 . 5 2 , 79 8 .1 2,35 0 . 4 904 . 5 496 . 7 591 .5 353 . 5 366 . 9 283 . 3 429 . 4 495 . 4 466 . 9 50 0 .7 426.8 463 . 8 14 , 3~'S2 . 0 1 3 , 022 . 7 - + + 541 . 5 74~2. 6 1 , 067 . 7 1,21 3 . 7 2 , 764 . 9 3, 818 . 6 3 , 08 3 . 5 1,132. 0 530 . 4 1,756 . 8 722 . 4 46 5.1 17,839 . 2 - 54 . 0 54 . 0 0 162 . 0 324 . 0 540 . 0 540 . 0 324 . 0 108 . 0 - 1 08 . 0 54 . 0 54.0 1 , 6 75 . 0 - 35 . 0 35 . 0 0 105 . 0 2 21 . 0 425 . 0 ~-S8 d . 0 226 . 0 80 . 0 + 62 .0 + 30 . 0 + 35.0 1,245 . 0 5 76 . 5 77 7. 6 1 ,067 . 7 1,1 08 . 7 2 , 543 . 9 3 , 393 . 6 2 , 695. 5 90 6 . 0 4 50 . 4 1, 81 8 . 3 752 . 4 50 0 . 1 1 6 , 594 . 2 TABLE III RECONSTRUCTI ON OF RI VER TO 1 930 FOR PAST DEPLET I ON I N UPPER BASIN _ . t ies . ,;; •s rcre - :i"'. ee .1.l,. Q,uan .,vl i. n t h OlJ. san u. Irri ge,ti on ~r ra.ri:3 - ·!1onth Diversion moun tain Diversion 1 912 J F lvi A M J J A 1120 A. 56 . 0 56. 0 0 168 . 0 336 . 0 56 0. 0 560 . 0 336 . 0 11 2 . 0 - 112. 0 - 56 .0 56.0 1,7 35 . 0 Year- N 191 3 J 1 160 A. - 58 . 0 I!, 58 . 0 0 M A 174.0 Jvl 348 . 0 J 580 . 0 J 580 . 0 ! A ! 348 . 0 c• ,J 1 16 . 0 0 ! 116 . 0 58 . 0 N n - 5ELO To t a l 1 , 800.0 ; A }JI J J A s 0 N D 'r otal 1 20 0 A. 60,0 60 . 0 0 180 .0 360 . 0 6 0 0 .0 600 . 0 360 . 0 1 20 . 0 1 20 . 0 60 . 0 - 60 . 0 1 , 860 . 0 6. 0 o. 7 4 .7 2. 3 1. 0 0.6 0. 5 o. s I I 16 . 0 Flow u. s. R. s. , Correc ted ! 331. 2 423 . 7 818 . 0 1 ,253 . 6 2 , 508 . 5 6,397 . 4 2 , 86 7. 3 1,396 . 6 582 . 0 6 76 . 8 699 . 2 403 . 4 1 3 ,357 . 6 - 58 . 0 58 . 0 0 174 . 0 348 . 6 584 . 7 583 . 2 349 . 0 116 . 6 1 1 6 .0 58 . 0 58 . 0 1,811 . 0 + + 31. 0 31 . o 0 93 . 0 196 . 3 380 . 3 345 . 7 201 . 0 71 . L1 + 54. 5 + 26 . 0 + 31.0 1,109 . 0 237 . 6 33 7. 0 557. 8 1, 523 . 7 2 , 397 . 8 2,827 . 3 1 , 302.9 579 . 6 524 . 3 634 . 9 4 71 . 9 392.9 11 , 78 8 . 3 - + + 29 . 0 2 9 .0 0 8 7. 0 1 84 . 0 357 . 5 324 . 2 1 88 . 4 6 7. 0 + 50 . 0 + 24 . 0 + 29 . 0 1 , 044 . 0 46 2 . 1 491 . 1 645 . 7 674 . 7 92 2 . 9 922 . 9 1,364 . 3 1,277. 3 3,307 . 6 3,123 . 6 6,217 .1 6 . 5 74 . 6 2 , 8 43 .6 3,167 . 8 1 ,349 . 5 i 1,161.1 .. 5 91.1 524 . 1 8 39 . 3 889 . 8 634 . 9 610 . 9 8 78 .2 ~. 84 7 . 2 20,654 . 4 ' 1 9 , 61 0 . 4 60 . 0 60 . 0 0 1 8 0. 0 361 . 0 607 . 5 1. 0 7. 5 3. 8 1.6 1. 0 i Ytuna 33 . 0 33 . 0 0 99 . 0 209 . 0 405 . 0 368 .0 21 4 . 0 76. 0 + 58 . 0 + 28 . 0 + 33 . 0 1,185 . 0 - 11 . 0 ' ! + + - - - Yuma 56 . 0 56 . 0 0 1 68 . 0 3:36 . 0 560 . 0 56 0.0 336 . 0· 11 2 . 0 11 2 . 0 56 . 0 - 56 . 0 1 , 741. 0 - - - 11J. - - D Total ]? l 9 29- To-tal - s Cor r e ction , Fl ow - 0 1 91 4 J Total ·s o 3 . 8 361.6 1 21 . 0 119 . 2 60 . 0 60 . 0 1, 8 76 . 0 - i 364 . 2 4 56 . 7 81 8 . 0 1,1 54.6 2 , 29 9 . 5 5 , 992 . 4 2,49 9 . 3 1,182 . 6 506 . 0 734 . 8 72 7 . 2 436 . 4 1 7,173 . 6 26 8 . 8 368 . 0 55 7. 8 1 , 430 . 7 2 , 201. 5 2 , 447 . o 957 . 2 378.6 453 . 4 689 . 4 497 . 9 423 . 9 1 0 , 6 79 . o :'ABLE. III ... ,--. ·.·.·. :.. • RECONSTRUCT ION OF RIVER TO 1930 FOR PAST DJ~PLET I ON IN UPPER BASillJ Q.uanti ti es in thousands acre-feet. Year - Irri gat ion Trans- L'l:onth Diversion mountain Diversion 1915 J ]? M ,A lVi J J A s 0 N D Total 1916 J F 1JI A 1[ J J A s 0 1T D Total 1917 J F 1i!1 A ,. .r J_\:_ J J A s 0 N D Total 1240 A. 1 62. 0 62.0 0 186.0 372.0 6GO.O 620.0 3'72.0 124,0 124.0 - . 6 2.0 62.0 1,920.0 1280 - 36.0 A, 64 . 0 64. 0 0 192.0 384.0 640 .0 640 . 0 384 , 0 12L'> , 0 - 128 . 0 64. 0 64. 0 1,985.0 - 1 320 . A. 66 . 0 6 c. 0 0 198,0 396.0 660.0 660 . 0 396.0 132.0 - 132,0 66 . 0 66 . 0 2,045.0 4.5 31 .0 15.7 6.6 4.0 3. 3 1,3 66 .0 - l 5,8 40.0 20.4 8 .6 5.2 4.3 1.7 86 .0 '.F1 ow Corrected 25.0 25,0 0 75,0 156 l5 294.0 27?.3 159.4 56 . 0 45 .3 + 21 . 3 + + 25.0 869.0 2i63 7. 0 1, 614.9 2,201.3 2,118 . 3 ;3, 363 . 4 3,538.9 2,25 8 . 4 1,574.9 736,1 1,635.8 707 .1 454.4 22, 940 .4 2,662.0 1,639 .. 9 2,201. 3 2,043.3 3 , 206,9 3 ,2 44.9 1,986.1 1,515,5 68 0.1 1, 6 31.1 723.1 47Q.4 22,071.4 6G .O 66 .0 0 19 3 .0 396 . 0 700. 0 + + 6 ?,0 . 4 247. 6 1 45.4 50 . 3 42. ;s + + 19.7 + 23.0 78 9.0 561.9 410.4 602.6 1,564.9 3,029.7 5 ,35 0 .2 [J,775 . 3 1,442.4 535.9 465.3 422 .2 419. 7 2 0 ,610,6 584. 9 463 . 4 602.6 1 ,495.9 2 , 8 8 6 .5 5,0 g 5.2 5 ,t:i 27.7 1,297. 0 4135 .l 507. 6 441.9 442.7 l J ,821.6 - 64 , 0 64 . 0 0 1 92.0 334.5 671. 0 655 .7 390 . 6 132.0 - 124.7 - 62.7 64 . 0 2,051.0 + - - - 404.6 137~2 127.7 64,3 .. 66.0 2 ,1 31 . 0 - u.s.R.s. 269.9 44 2.1 ;.555 _3 353 .7 14 , 643 .2 27.0 27.o 0 81.0 170. 6 328.2 299.5 174 ,4 61,8 + 47 . 8 + 22,7 + 27.0 964 .0 - Yuma Yuma Flow 589 . 7 1, 531. 7 950 , 9 1, 70 7. 7 2, ?71, 5 2,563 . 5 1,597.1 510 , 9 20.s.1 439.9 3 ?8 . 5 3iJO. 7 13, 679 .2 .,,. + 62 . 0 62 .0 0 1 86 . 0 374.4 636. 8 628,5 375.6 126 . 2 122.2 ·- 61.3 62.0 1,956.0 - 2,4 16,8 8 ,5 3.6 2 .2 1. 8 0.7 Correction 1929- 'lot al - - - Total + 2 3 .0 23.0 0 69 . 0 143. 2 265 C ::.\ 562.7 1,504.7 950 . 9 l, 78t3. 7 2,941.1 2,.391.7 1,896.6 62)5 3 0 7. TABLE III RECONSTnUCTION OF RIVER TO 19210 FOR PAST DEPLE'rION I N lTPPim BASIN 1ua ntitie s in thousands acre-feet. I ' Year- Irri gat i on I'(o nth Diversi on 1913 I\ 1360 ii.. 68.0 - 68.0 0 204.0 408.0 680.0 6GO . O J F JVl A 1,I J m A s 0 :N n Total l·-~• ,,, n ;:,· ..L. ;,/ J F NC 5~2 4.3 1 .7 2,1 1 0.0 G6e0 0 210.0 42O.O 700. 0 700 . 0 42O. O .l\. 1920 J }? T.{ .:\ -,~ J T ,) l l; J . 8 .. 140., 0 - 70 . 0 70 . 0 2, 170 . 0 - - I"\ ·-~,_., e 'J 96 . O - 71. 6 71. 6 ,_, 429 . S 716.5 716.5 lc:29 • 'J - 143.3 - 71 . S - 71 . 6 2,2?0 . 0 ,. n n . L_: : _) . ,_) N I • V 21 . 4 1 0 .3 G.2 5. 2 2. 0 103,0 21.0 21.0 405.4 322 .7 1,0 08 .2 766.6 7 ) 1, 7(n6 3 , 6 74. 3 2,659.8 710. ;5 406.2 473.6 L\ 79 • 5 451.4 13,145.3 + + 0 63 . O 131. 2 245 . 0 227 . 6 13 3.4 46 . 3 + + + r7 ,.-. ,._,•o . o'7. 17. 7 21. 0 '124 . 0 + + 1s.o 19.0 0 57 .0 1 7_ ',-..-.) . ::>1:220 . 0 205. 3 120 . 4 42S1 • 6 (', ?15. :_') 1J. S. Ils S .. 0 1 45 .7 - 13 5.2 - 68 .1 - 70. :) 2,26 C.O - 71.C 14:3.3 D r:1otciul 6. 13 2 :~ . 7 9 . (-i 5 .'7 4 . 2) 1. 9 Yv..ra2, 1 9 2 9 - '.I' o t c1,l 210 . 0 426 . 5 745 . 0 722.7 /, r:-:: 9 s ~ - 1 437, ;\ c ~- 77. 6 .!.\ it - 70.0 70 . 0 - . 70 . 0 - 7•). 0 .J Tot al ~8 0 1 40') l\ . .T n 720. 0 700.4 416 . C 141. 2 - 131. 7 - 66 . 3 - 68 . 0 2,196 . 0 8 06 .. ' 0 4O0.O 136. 0 ·- 136 .0 - 68 . 0 j 1lf N 5.3 ,1:Q O 0 20.4 CoTrection, ).!'J. 0 .ii 0 204 .0 40;1, . o - Tota,l .0 -- 68 68 .0 - A s Transmountain Diversion ,i ,, ~ 426 . 4 343.? 1,008.2 703. 6 1, 655 . 5 3,429. 8 2,432.2 5 r/6 • 9 35 9 . 4 511.9 497 .2 472.4 12 , 421 . 3 250.3 41?. 0 543 . ;~ 1,167.6 2,102.6 1,-323.6 1,0 37.3 533.7 264. 5 359 . 9 621 . 4 963 . 5 1 0 ,0 36. 0 :306. 8 34 . G l <.!i:: • 0., + 19.0 654 . J 325.1 605 . 5 944 . 4 _:_o . 7 40. o 1 '7. 4 17. 4 ?01 . 5 ?1 2, . ~) ~?,, 18 ?1 .0 3 399.9 2,205.7 1,112. 9 1,159.5 2 ,73 3. 3 7,489 . 8 2,459.6 970 .2 462 .9 431. 3 619 • I\ 6330 8 451 . 9 21,445.8 469 . 3 20, 8 48 . 2· + + + + 0 215 . 0 43C . 9 18-5.l '76 11 0 6 ~~o 52.0 7110 . s o. 5 1 37 . l 4 w. 2 l0 S;. 3 r-. r·, r 1 2 , 3 2 ::'l , J 231.3 398.0 543 . 2 1,2 24 . 6 2,221.1 :2,043.6 1,2 42.6 654 .1 Yuma Flo ,g Cor:ce cted ~-. • ,) 0 1 49 . 5 .. 138.1 - 60 . 6 ·71 . G . ' 00 . 0 + + + 31. 9 14. 4 17.4 597.0 1,112.9 1 ,211. f:i 2,841.9 '7,6 90 .3 2,646.7 1,080.0 501. 4 RECONST RUCTION OF RI VER TO 1 930 FOR PAST DEPLETION IN 'UPPE R BA. SI U ').J.anti ti es in thou's a nd s acre-feet . Year- Ir r i gati on J.:Tonth • 19 21 ;r : Di version r. 146 7 A. - F M A M ' J J A . s 0 N , 73.2 .73.2 0 220.0 439.8 733.0 733.0 439.0 146.7 - 146.7 . - 146.7 73J2 2,..275.0 Total - 1922 1500 A. D J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1923 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total Transmountamn Diversion o:: 7.9 51.0 25.8 10.9 6.5 2.2 l.0':;1.0 .. - -- , - 73.2 0 220.0 447.2 784.0 758.8 449.9 113.2 l 1.2 - · 71 ..0 73.2 4 .384.0 .. 11.,.0 74.8 74.8 0 225.0 457. 5 803.1 776.7 t # 14.2 # 14.2 0 42.0 -- 72.5 74.8 ..- 77.0 77.0 # 461.2 - 144.2 2,A40.0 0 231. 0 470.2 826.5 798.o 28.6 12.1 1.21.u Yurna 474.1 161.3 - 148.o 74.6 77.0 2,f 511.0 -- U~S. R. S. Yuma Flo w Corrected 442.8 424.7 ·824.5 814.2 767.2 2, 670.0 2,572.2 6,608.7 6,427.7 2,815'. 9 2,646.7 2, ;i.62. 3 2,062.2 1,097.4 1,062.6 551.4 580.2 447.8 460.8 6t;1. 9 6~6-1 19,464.4 18,923.5 427.0 408.9 824.5 ·. 156.9 8.2 56.5 7. 3 6.3 2.1 # 15.8 0 47.0 97.8 181.0 169.2 100.1 34.8 28.8 13.0 # 1'5. 8 536.o 87.5 161.9 151. 3 ,88.8 31.1 # 25.8 # 11.5 # 14.2 27.2 0 231.0 462.0 770.0 770.0 462.0 154.0 - 154.0 77.0 77.0 2,390.0 ,, 73. 2 ._ # 15.8 7.8 53.6 1540 A. - 77.0 77.0 - 1929 -Tot 9..l -11.5 6.9 5.8 2.3 Cor r ecti on , E'low ,., - -- 74.8 74.8 ~ 225.0 . 449.6 749.5 749., 449.6 150.0 - - 150.0 75.0 75.0 2325.0 To tal 4~0.0 # 12.0 12.0 0 36.o 74.8 138.5 129.4 75.9 20.7 # 22.0 # 9.4 # 12.0 409.0 800.1 814.3 612.4 598.2 997.3 997.3 1,137.7 l, 095• 7 3,436.8 3,349.3 ,. 816. 3 5, ·654.4 l, 94"5. 2 1,793.9 742.0 653.2 524.4 493.3 239.4 265.7 326.3 337.8 455.3 469.5 l'/,019.5 16, 539. 5 327.5 339.5 321.0 333.0 540.0 540.0 1,077.0 l, 041.0 2,875.0 2,800.0 ,. 071.0 4,932.5 2,617.0 2,487.6 1, 514.0 1,438.1 1,270.8 1, 244.l 736.3 714.3 828.0 818.6 666.o 6~8.o 17,843.5 17,434.5 TABLE III RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER TO 1930 FOR PAST DEPLETION IN UPPER BASIN . ' l ~uantities in thousands acre-feet. Year- Irrigation Month Diversion 1924 D Total 1580 A. 79.0 79.0 0 237.0 474.0 790.0 790.0 474.0 158.0 - 158.0 79.0 79.0 2,450.0 1925 1620 A. J F M A .llli J J A s 0 N J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1926 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total Transmountain Diversion --- 8.6 59.2 30.0 12.ij 7.6 6.4 2. 5 127.0 .... 81.0 81.0 0. 243.0 486.o 810.0 810.0 486.o 162.0 - 162.0 81.0 81.0 2, 510.0 -- 9.0 62.0 31.4 13.3 8.o 6.7 2.7 133.0 .. 1660. A. 83.0 - 83.0 0 249.0 498.o 830.0 830.0 498.o 166.0 .. 166.0 ... 83.0 83.0 2, 570.0 - Correction, - -- 79.0 ... 79.0 0 237.0 482.6 849.2 820.0 486.7 165.6 151.6 ... 76. 5 79.0 2, 577 .o 10.0 $ 10.0 - .. 81.0 - 81.0 0 - 243.0 495.0 872.0 841.4 499.3 168.0 .. 155. 3 78.3 81.0 2, 643.0 -- .. 83.0 - 9.5 65.5 33.1 14.0 8.4 7.0 2.8 140.0 Yuma Flow 1929-Total u.s.R.s. Corrected Total - 83.0 0 249.0 507. 5 895.5 863.l 512. ~ 174.4 - 159.0 80.2 83.0 2, 710.0 .... t) 30.0 62.5 115.8 108.0 63.3 22.4 # 18.4 # 7.5 # 10.0 343.0 # # 8.0 8.o 0 24.0 50.0 92.0 86. 6 50. 7 20.0 # 14.7 5.7 $277.0 8.o $ 06.o 6.o 18.0 37.5 69.5 64.9 38.o 13.6 11.0 3.8 # 6.o $ 210.0 Yuma Flow 785.0 795.0 481.0 491.0 520.0 520.0 l, 316. 0 1. 286.0 2. 563.0 2,500.6 3, 169.0 3,080.2 1,123.0 1,015.0 288.0 224.7 184.0 161.6 244.0 262.4 369.0 376.5 352.0 362.0 11,421.0 11,078.0 213.0 221.0 350.0 358.o 530.8 530.8 1,092.0 1,068.0 1,782.0 1, 73a.o 2, 498.o 2,405.0 l, 742.0· l, 655. 4 687.8 738. 5 1,210.0 1,190.0 l, 150.0 1,164.7 677.0 682.7 474.0 4A?.. O 12,457.0 12,180.3 362.0 294.0 446.o 1, 392.0 2,738.0 3,490.5 1,392.0 498.o 246.4 438.o 449.0 255.0 258.8 459.o 465.o 12,201.0 11, 991.0 3g6.o 2 8.o 446.o 1,410.0 2.i-776.o 3, 560.0 1,417.0 536.o 260.0 /0. TABLE III RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER TO 'l930 FOR PAST DEPLETION IN UPPER BASIN ~ua.ntit~es in thou~ands acre-feet. Year- Irrigation Month Diversion 1927 1700 A. J F M A M J J A s 0 N · D Total 1928 J I .A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1929 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total Transmountain Diversion a,.o -- a,.o a,o.o a,o.o 510.0 170.0 - 170.0 -- a,.o B'l. 0 2, 630.0 1740 A. 87.0 87.0 0 261.0 522.0 870.0 870.0 522.0 174.0 ... 174.0 ... 87.0 87.0 2, 690.0 146.0 -- - 1780 A. 89.0 89.0 0 267.0 534.0 890.0 890.0 5'34.0 178.0 ...- 178.0 89.0 10.3 71.0 35.9 15.2 9. l 7.6 3.0 -2,760.0 4.0 $ 04.o -- 87.0 87.0 # - - 0 261.0 532. 3 941.0 905.9 537. 2 183.1 - 166.4 84.0 87.0 2,642.0 -152.0 12.0 25.1 47.0 43. 5 25.4 9.2 # 7.3 # 1.9 # 4.0 144.0 # 2.0 2.0 0 6.o 12.7 24.0 74.7 37.8 16.0 9.6 8.o 3.2 160.0 -- 284, O 280.0 1,070.0 1,074.0 719.0 719.0 947.0 959.0 2,990.0 2,965.0 3,450.0 3,402.0 2, 670.0 2., 626. 5 913.0 887.6 1,800.0 l, 790.8 l, 050.0 l, 057. 3 732.0 733.9 462.0 466.o 17,095.0 16, 951.0 396.0 445'.0 48.o l 03.0 3,270.0 3,830.0 398.o 447.0 548.0 797.0 3,257.3 3,806.0 1,545.9 526.0 243.l 401.6 o.o 22~.o 26 .o 678.0 1. 430.0 2, 720.0 4, 700.0 2,100.0 2, 11,.0 1,480.0 935.0 464.0 361.0 17, 474.0 ,,o.o 187.6 - 170.0 85'.8 89.0 (, 2. ·920 .o Yuma Flow Corrected 539.0 248.o 398.o 444.0 444.0 ~92.0 "ig4.0 12,781.0 12,703.0 0 267.0 45.0 ~64.7 927.8 11.0 Yuma Flow u.s.R.s. 22.1 12.8 4.9 # 3.6 0 # 2.0 7'0.0 -- 89.0 89.0 -- sq.o 85.0 85.0 0 255.0 519. 9 918.o 884., 524.6 178.8 .. 162. 7 82.1 85.o 2. 776. 0 - 9.9 68.0c• 34.5 14.6 8.8 7.3 2.9 Correction, 1929.. Total ... 0 255.0 510.0 Total l, 568.0 11. TABLE IV RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER AT BLACK CANYON TO 1930. Q,ua.nti ties in thousands acre-feet YearMonth Glla Flow Laguna Losses, Black• u.s.R.s. Diversion Laguna 1 Algebrai c Hardy. Total 1899 M A M J Columns 1 to 4 inclusive J corrections at Hardyville. s 0 N D do not enter into the 459.3 the reconstructed river at A .'c M J J A s O· N D Total 9.0 Upper Basin irrigation 1900 M 2. 812. 5 3,614.0 4,300.3 3, 337. 2 265.4 diversions is the same as F 762. 5 700.0 Hardyville corrected for Total J for u.B. Correct Flow at B1ack c. 662. 5 j, A C-o ~r~¢t Black Canyon. Cumul. Mass ,i\'1 1u , 0.7 1.4 2.1 4.9 8.5 12, 8 16.1 16.1 51 7.0 16.4 16.9 462.'5' 17.4 17.9 660. 5 760. 5 18. 6 19. 4 700.0 2, 818. 5 20.1 22. 9 4,320.3 2. 357.2 21.0 30. 8 33.2 69.4 313.0 33.3 33.6 358.5 34.2 400.0 l, 324. 5 35.0 2,138.0 38.4 17,901.5 3, 626. o 26. 5 33.2 157.3 33.7 ----;---,-16~0~• --iIi _ 3 3. 9 15, 963.0 1901 J lr M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1902 358.5 1,840.3 877.2 33.0 273.4 509.0 455.3 4'J'8. 5 9,026.0 34.6 36.3 40. 2 41.l 41.l 41.4 41.9 42.4 42.9 Fl. TABLE IV RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER AT BLACK CANYON TO 1930 • Q,ua.nt i 1t1es in th,ousan d s acre- f ee t Year-- Gila. Flow Month u.s.R.s. Laguna Losses, Bia.ck to Df\irers:toni 1Iiaguna Correct Correct Flow at for U.B. ~lack c. Cumul. Me.es, M. A.f. 356.5 356. 5 43.2 43.6 Algebraic Hardy. Total 1902 J F M A M 400.0 44.0 44.8 830. 5 1,650.0 l, 360. 3 397.2 45.0 277.4 5.0 5.0 4 53.3 4','6.5 7, oas.o 46.5 47.9 48.3 48.6 48.6 49.1 49.5 50.0 37. 5 37. 5 90.0 88.8 89.9 225.0 o.o ~9.3 ~§.l 2 .9 37.5 37.5 bts4.0 239.4 () 276.9 226.5 274.0 367.7 457.7 657.3 746.o 1,623.0 l, 713. 9 2, 502. 3 2,727.3 1,646.3 1,736.3 2~8.4 347.7 2 8.5 325.6 618. 5 642.4 372.1 409.6 320. 6 ~i;,R.J 9,133.6 10,oi7.6 50.3 50. 6 51.0 51. 7 53.4 56.1 57.9 58"3 58.6 59. 2 59.6 60.0 37.5 2i5.1 2 9.3 367.7 325.2 1, 379. 6 60.3 60.6 61.0 61.4 62.9 65. 1 65. 9 66.7 67.4 68.1 68.6 69.0 - J J A s 00 :N' D 'rotal Yuma Correct for U.B. 1903 ~~: ~ J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1.15' 0.08 0.69 o.41 13.63 16.00 1904 ~~:~ J F M A M J J A s 0 N D ·i otal 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.~ 90.0 90.0 7.5 ~7. 5 37, 5 37.5 -7VV.U 9o.o 90.0 90.0 5.8 139.6 41. 6 32.8 6.5 22 5.0 226.4 "100.0 90.0 90.0 37.5 37, 5 37. 5 37.5 '' 37.5 90.0 ~~i:§ 457.7 415. 2 90.0 1,469.6 225.0 2,009.8 2,229.0 - 49.6 859. 2 809.6 48.4 729.1 777. 5 4.7 578.9 583.6 31.0 817.0 848.o 37.5 414. 3 451.8 ,37. 5 <26.3 <h.d < 673.6 8,351.8 9,025.4 9o.o TABLE IV RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER AT BLACK C.A1.TYON TO 1930 ~uantities in thousands acre-feet. l " •·-.}-- Laguna ' Losses, Algebraic I Yuma Year- ,. ., , Gil··a -r,·.l..'""' Corrected Qumul. Flow Black to Mass, Flow at Month u.s.R.s. 1 iveraion Laguna Total Corrected Black @an. M. A.ft 1 ,!- .,,, ' --..... ,. 1905 J F M A M J J A 188.9 • 680. 5 1,022.2 768.2 299.7 43.l 4.3 s 2.9 0 N 11.2 D Total 1906 J F M A M J J A s 270.9 ~?">.O 3,667. 2 136.6 167.9 567.0 422. 3, M A 0 N D Total 90.0 9o.o o.4 _90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 J s 37. 5· 37. 5 90.0 90.0 90.0 N J A 37.5 37. 5 37.5 37. , 900.0 141.7 57.9 260.7 25.1 4.3 D F 90.0 90.~ 1, 459.1 4.6 0 1903 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37. 5 37.5 37.5 37. 5 900.0 122.2 N Tota.l 37.5 3~., 90.2, 58.9 13.7 623.4 7.5 ~fl. 5 37. 5 37.5 900.0 .. 151.4 - 643.0 .. 932. 2 - 678.2 - 209. 7 181.~ 85. 7 90.0 37.5 37. 5 37. 5 ~,,:i;4-8. 9 1,609.4 3,107.4 2,103.6 2, 288.o 3,985.8 1,355.9 434.1 278.9 584.2 759.8 548.9 966.4 2,175.2 1i426.4 2,078.3 4,167.7 1,421.6 524.1 313. 5 610. 5 526.4 6~8. ~ ~?. ij C}Q'1.0 -2, 567. 2 18,031.1 15,436.9 -- 99.1 468.l 577~0 - 130.4 - 477.0 l, 562.0 - 332.3 1,794.6 32.2 3,033.7 220.4 4, 470. 5 90.0 1,892.0 64.9 879.0 33. 2 596.4 37. 5 805.0 37., 618.9 37. 5 1.184.0 - 559.1 17,882. O 369.8 4-46.6 1, os5.1 l, 462. 3 3,005.1 4,690.9 1,982.5 944.3 629.2 842.5 656.4 L 221. 7 17, 322.9 - 104. 2 1,259.8 1,063.6 1, 309.4 2,058.0 2,145.0 5, 350. 3 5,542.2 - 1~ 364.0 1,084.0 - 170.6 1,480.0 90.0 1,968.0 90.0 2,055.0 225.0 5, 1253 90.0 5, 542. 2 89.4 2,030.0 52.7 l, 284. 2 ... 21.4 916.0 23.8 683.3 502.0 37. 5 11 276. 6 23,942.0 - - 20.4 2,119.4 1,229.7 894.6 707.6 ~iq• ~ 24,218.6 69.4 70.4 72.6 74.0 76.0 80.2 81.6 82.1 82.4 83.0 83.6 84.3 84.9 85.4 86.5 88.o 91.0 95.7 97.7 98.6 99.2 100.0 100.6 101.8 103.1 104.2 105. 5 107.5 109.6 115.0 120. 5 122.6 123.8 124.7 125.4 125.9 /4. TABLE IV RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER AT BLACK CANYON TO 1930 ~uantities in thousand s acre-feet. ' Year- Gila Fiow Month 1908 J F M- A I I I ILaguna U. S.R. s. 391. 5 ,, 162.6 37.5 37.5 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37.5 37. 5 37.5 \.) M J J A s 0 N D Total 1909 J F M A M 94.7 44.2 404.0 1,097.1 71.9 175.1 147.4 96.0 s 0 10.7 13.7 13.1 661.2 158.0 9<W.O 213.0 9.2 0.3 1.5 16.3 15.4 19.4 19.4 20.1 19.9 2o.8 20.1 16. 7 19.6 18.7 37. 5 37.5 - 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37. 5 37.5 37. 5 226.0 900.0 14.2 21.0 54. 5 81.0 N D Total 1910 J F M A M J J' A 11.4 10.7 13.6 13.6 _1 4.l 13.9 14. 5 14.1 , <- I,. s 0 N D Total 9cw.o 37.5 37.5 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37.5 ,37.5 37.5 J J A Losses, IBla· , c.k .to Diversior: Laguna 19_4 224.0 i?. ti i7. Ii' Algebraic Total .. Yuma Correced 468.o 504.5 ~1 ·' ' '</;'• 4-- , 1,025.5 l, 5'00.0 2, 28-5--3 1,637.2 1,220.3 578.7 697..g 556. 6fii.O - i66. 5 l.019.2 12,045.9 - 197.1 12,243.0 23.0 654. 7 631.7 811.8 - 126.& 684.9 43.8 975.1 931. 3 l, 688.0 1,695.6 87.6 9.9 3,079.7 3,169.6 238.9 5,775.8 6,014.7 4, 469.l 4,552.6 .6 2,258.5 2, 308.1 2.8 2,801.0 2,768.2 ~ .2 930.8 982.0 .6 597.7 648.3 51.1 556.1 607.2 397.8 24, ")f.j 7. o 24,995.4 -.. - Me.es, For u.B. Black Can M. A.ft 430.5 37. ! -_ 354.c 858. 5 72.6 990.0 90.0 935. 5 9o.o 1,410.0 225.0 2,060.3 9o.o 1,547.2 4.7 l, 225'.0 6.7 585.0 660.0 • 37.5 37. 5 519. 3 .. - Corrected Cumul. Flow at ~g•' ?o - J59.2 1,195.0 1,036.6 43.7 545.6 589.3 109.1 l, 498. 7 1,,07.8 107.9 1, 599.0 1,706.9 110·.1 3m239. 5 3,349.6 244.9 2,353.4 2,598.3 110.8 496.7 607. 5 110.1 35'3. 5 463.6 54. 2 283.3 337.5 57.1 495.4 552. 5 56.2 500. 7 556.9 i:,~n_7 463.8 56.9 902.0 13,022.7 13,924.7 126.5 127.0 12~.9 12e.9 136.4 132.7 134.3 139..5 130.1 136. 8 · 137.4 138.o 138.6 139.3 140.3 142.0 145.2 151.2 155.8 158.1 160.9 161.9 162.5 163.1 164.0 164.6 166.2 167.9 171.2 173.8 174.4 175.1 175.4 175.9 176.4 1 76.9 /5. TABLE IV RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER AT BLACK CANYON TO 1930 ~uantities in thousands acre-feet. Year- I ' ' Laguna Losses, Algebraic Gila Yuma Corrected Cumul. Flow Mass, Black to Corrected Flow at Month u.s.R.s. iversion .Laguna Total for U .B. Black C. M. A.f I • 1911 J F M A + 35.7 1- 20.2 83.9 )( 20.1 J J A 34. 7 0 N 30.2 17.3 s D otal 222.0 1912 J F M A M J J A 121.0 70.0 o.6 0 N 1.4 s 12.5 25.4 D Total 231.0 191) F M · A M J J A o.6 57. 5 15. 7 s 0 N D Total 16.3 15.4 19.4 19.4 73. 19.9 20.8 20.1 16.7 lo/.6 18.7 4 226.0 22.4 21.2 26.8 27.7 2.7 27.4 28.6 .7 ~ .o 27.0 26.8 2 8 311.0 28.7 27.1 34.2 34.2 53.4 35.0 37.6 35.4 29.4 34.6 33.1 4.2 9 .o 37. 5 37, 5 9o.o 90.0 90.0 225. 0 90.0 jo.o 7. 5 37.5 ~~:' 37., 37.5 90.0 ijO.O 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37. 5 37. 5 37. 5 37.5 900.0 37. 5 37.5 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37. 5 37. 5 37. 5 3 • 900.0 18.l 576.5 32.7 777.0 25.5 1,067.7 109.4 l, 108. 7 110.1 2,543.9 244.9 3,393.6 76. 1 2,695'. 5 110.1 906.0 54. 2 450.4 26.q 1,818.0 38.9 752.4 6 4.0 16,594.2 364.2 45'6.7 4.2 8.8.o 46.8 1,154.6 117.1 2,299.5 152.4 5,992.4 106.1 2,499.3 92.3 1,182.6 5 506.0 63.1 734.8 63. 3 727.2 64.3 436.4 •o 17,17 • - 59.9 58.7 co. 94.6 17i•§ g10.3 17 1,093.2 179.4 180.6 2,654.2 183.3 3,638.5 186.9 2,771.6 189.7 l, 016.l 190.7 504.6 191.2 l, 845.l 19:3.0 791.3 193,8 194.4 l, 218.l 424. l 515.4 813.8 1,201.4 2,416.6 6,144.8 2,605.4 l, 274. 9 566.5 797.9 790.6 ,00.7 334.8 432.0 624.5 l, 539. 2 2, 3~6. 9 2,707.0 1,084.8 514.o ,20.3 761. 5 l, 224.2 10,679.3 11,903.5 42 212.6 18,152. 66.3 268.8 64.0 368.o 66.7 557.8 108. 5 l, 430. 7 125.4 2,201.5 26o.o 2,447.0 127.6 957. 2 13,.4 378.6 66.9 45'3.4 72.1 689.4 70. 6 497.9 l. 194.8 195.3 196.1 197.·7 199.7 205.9 208. 5 209.8 210.5 211.3 212.1 568., 212.9 213. 3 214.0 215. 5 217.8 220. 5 221.6 222.1 222.6 223. 4 224.0 ·24.5 /6. TABLE IV ;'1 ·I,,'/, RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER AT BLACK CANYON TO 1930 ;;,Q .uanti ties •i n thousamis acre-feet. Year- ~ila F10w lonth 1914 J F 1[ A M J J A s 0 N D F M A M J J A s 1.2 118.6 17.6 2.0 25. 6 11.0 10.3 10. 5 139.6 694.2 320.9 389.l 367.0 16.9 2.4 21.8 0 N D Total 1916 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total oa s es, lgebra.ic , lac$ to u.s.R.s. D1versio • Laguna total Total 191J Laguna l, 951. 9 2,093. o· 690.0 747.7 559.3 27.1 2. 5 37.2 35.1 44.5 44.5 46.o 45.5 47.5 46.o 38.2 45.0 42.8 44.5 1 .o 45'.8 43.2 54.7 54.7 56.6 56.o 58.5 56.6 47.0 55.4 52.8 4. 37.5 7.5 ~o.o 90.0 225.0 90.0 5'4.4 66.5 69. 5 67. 2 55.9 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37.5 37.5 37,.., • 5 37. 5 37.5 90.0 90.0 4,494.0 755.0 900.0 3 • 3,123.7 6, 2l 7.1 2,843.6 1,161.1 524.1 889.8 634.9 ' t .2 .4 Corrected Cumul. Flow a.t Black C. 2,662.0 1,639.9 592.7 2, 201.-0 404.3 2,043.3 130.1 3,206.9 289.0 3, 2f4. 9 159. 5 1,986.1 157.2 l, 515. 5 22.5 680.1 119.2 l, 681. 1 46.4 728.l 75.0 479.4 660.9 1,038.7 1,608.6 1, 639.0 3, 337.0 2, 145".6 l, 672. 6 702.6 1, 569.1 774.8 544.4 ..- - 2t • 1. M. A.Ft 1 533.4 918.2 774.7 1,463.3 2, 551.1 2,827.6 1,743.3 635.7 292.6 -2, 00~.1 - 601. 2 Mass,. 564.6 225.1 628.7 225.7 1,039.8 226.7 l, 411.8 228.1 ~· 259. 6 231.4 , 487. 6 237.9 2,979.1 . 240. 9 l, 271.4 242.2 588.8 242.8 62.0 243.8 04.8 244.5 2 245.0 20,473.6 589.7 1, 531. 7 950.9 1,707.7 2,771.5 2,563.5 l, 597.1 510.9 208.l 489.9 90.3 378. 5 92.2 80. - 415.9 13, 79.2 90.0 37. 5 37. 5 922.9 l, 277. 3 - 56.3 ... 613. 5 - 176.2 - - 244.4 .. 220.4 264.l 146.l 124.8 84.6 92.9 90.0 37.5 6 .o .. 6928 90.0 225.0 ' 62.6 2- 135. 110.3 64.6 72.2 8 70.9 222.3 53.7 65'.6 270. 90.0 37.5 37,5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 491.l 674.1 - 46. 9o.o 3 .o 51. 3 65.0 65.0 67.2 73. 116. 134. 136. Yuma. orreoted fop U.B. 245. 5 246.4 247.2 248.7 251.3 254.l 255.8 256.4 256.7 582.8 257.3 468.8 257.8 258.3 259.0 260.0 261.6 263.2 266.5 272. 273.8 274.5 276.1 276.9 277. 5 270.0 /7. TABLE IV , , RECONSTRUCTION OF ·RIVER AT :BLACK CANYOll TO :l930 ~uantities in thousands acre-feet. YearMonth Gila Flow 163.8 83.3 132.9 448.2 243.7 J F M A M 0.5 J J A 82.3 s O> N D l, 154. 7 1918 1.6 J F M A M 12.4 243.4 17.2 J J A 52.3 s 0 N D Total l9lj F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total Los s es, Algebraic Black t u.s.R.s. Diversion Lagu~a 1917 Total Laguna. m 63.0 59.5 75.2 75.3 77.8 77.0 80. 5 77.8 84.7 76.0 72.5 7 .2 74.0 71.4 67.4 65.2 65.2 88.2 87.2 91.2 88.2 ii:~ 82. 2 2.8 329.7 6 .2 991.0 11.9 79.9 75. 5 95.5 24.4 18.9 60.1 3.1 42.6 54.2 8.7 188.l 06.0 739.9 21.2 ;i:g 97.6 102.0 98.8 82.0 96.5 92.1 37.5 7.5 o.o 90.0 90.0 225.0 g Total .. 75.q 302.0 1io.5 5. 5 122.2 113.5 110.0 112.7 41 • 900.0 7.5 ~7. 5 90.0 90.0 90.0 22,.0 90.0 90.0 37. 5 37.5 37,5 '"' 584.9 463.5 602.6 1,495.9 2,886.5 5,085.2 ,. 527. 7 63.5 13.7 32.3 .. 283.0 90.0 37.5 37.5 37. 5 37. 5 37, 5 Corrected Cumul. Yuma. }4:a.s s, Corrected Flow at for u.B. Black C. M.A.Ft - 90.0 7.5 ~7.5 90.0 9o.o 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37. 5 I l • - 107.3 92.5 88.2 138.o 178.l 312.2 181.2 125.9 110,8 123.7 119.7 99. , , 5 l. 3 1oi.5 8 .6 166.6 125.4 185.7 322.6 149.4 134.6 110.8 112.a - ,a., - 1 •.6 1,270.1 l, 297.0 485.1 507.6 441.9 442.7 l • 426.4 343.7 1,008.2 703_.6 l, 655• 5 3,429.8 2,432.2 576.9 359.4 511.9 497.3 4 2.4 12,421.3 250. 3 417.0 533. 2 1,167.6 2,102.6 1,823.6 1,037.3 533.7 264.5 359.9 621.4 '6 • 6 10,08 .o 521.4 477.1 634.9 1,212.9 2,810.6 5,387.2 5,698.2 l, 382. 5 607. 3 621. 3 551. 9 .4 20,440.9 278.0 278., 279.1 280.3 283.l 288.5 294.2 295.6 · 296.2 296.8 297.3 297.9 297.9 533.7 298.4 436.2 298.9 920.0 299.7 841.6 300. 5 l, 833. 6 302.3 3, 842.o 306.0 2,613.4 308.6 702.8 309.3 470.2 309.8 635.6 310.4 616. 9 311.0 72. 311.6 13,982. 355.a 505. 6 709.8 l, 293.0 2.288.3 2,146.2 1,186.7 668. 3 375.3 472.7 562.9 ll, 356.1 312. 3 312.8 313. 5 314.8 317.1 319.2 320.4 321.1 321.5 322.0 322.5 323~3 18. TABLE IV RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER AT BLACK CANYON TO 1930 ~ua.ntities in thousands a.ore-feet. Year-·Month l.920 J" F M A M J Gila. Flow --40.0 H4-i·4 190., 108.2 14~6 9.4 13.6 800.8 1921 M 22.9 8.4 1.0 A M J" J" A s 0 N D Total 1922 J F M A M J" 99000 90.0 225.0 107.0 37.5 37.5 37. 5 102.0 105. 8 37., l, 230.0 900.0 85. 5 37. 5 37. 5 8Q.' 101., 101., 10,.2 108.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 2~g:g Algebraic 1 Total 86.1 .. 303.4 .3 8~.6 184.9 233.2 203.0 100.1 109.6 190. 5 191., 195. 2 329.0 198.o 5. 7 87.~ 10 2 . 98.3 478-3 1,182.e 329.7 82.4 164.3 34.2 2, 8 91.0 37. 5 ... 201.2 90.0 90.0 90.0 22,.0 90.0 34.2 164.3 199.3 336.o .4?.g 7.0 D . 'i2~ 1 TotaJ ., ~72~, 105.2 l Ol .. r, ag.9 10 • 5 108.; 112.1 111.0 116.0 112.1 93.5 109.6 104. 5 108. i, 1, 260.0 37.5 90.0 37., 37.5 37. 5 37. 5 900.0 Yuma Corrected Cumul. Corrected: Flow at Ma.es, f'or u.B. Black C. M.A.Ft 2, 20,. 7 718.9 1,112.6 805.0 l, 902. 3 1,118.2 l, 159.0 · l, 247.l 2,733.8 2,818.7 7,489.8 2,459.6 7, 723.0 2,662.6 1. 169. 7 970.2 462.9 591.4 431.8 576.3 633.8 763.9 469.3 597.0 l, 329. 2 20, tl4~. e 22, 178.o 199.5 128., 144. 5' 130.1 127.7 9o.o 37. 5 37.5 37.5 37.5 900.0 341.l 41.l 15.2 A 0 N 37.5' ~7,' ,o.o o.o ~o.o 104.0 J s ni'ti"ck ·t o 113.0 109.5 91.0 0 J F 88.6 83. 5 10,.8 10,.8 109.5 108.2 s D Total Lo,ssee, I U. S.R. S. Diversion Laguna J" A N Laguna.. - 145.9 83.9 125.1 130.1 96.1 l, 603. 7 41.0 206.0 202.1 124.0 147.0 142.0 9~ .. g 442.8 542.9 424. 7 534.3 824.5 1,015.0 767.2 958.7 2,572.2 2,767.4 6,427.7 6,756.7 2, 646. 7 2,844.7 2,062. 2 1,916. 3 1,062.6 l,1'46.5 580.2 705.3 460.8 590.9 651. 9 748.o 18, 923. 5 20,527.2 814.3 612.4 997.0 l, 095. 7 3; 348. 3 5,654.5 l, 794.0 653.0 49.3. 3 26,.7 337.8 46g. 'i 613.1 653.4 1,031.5 l, 260. 0 3,548.6 5,990.4 1,999.9 855. 3 617. 3 412. 7 479.8 S-6~.4 1,487.5 16,539.5 18,027.0 324.1 326.0 327.1 328.3 331.1 338.8 341.5 342.'l 343.3 343. 9lil 344.7 345.3 346.o 346.5 347.5 348. 5 351. 3 358.0 360.8 362.7 363.8 364.5 365.1 365. 9 366.6 367.3 368.3 369.6 373.1 379.0 381.0 381. 6 382.2 382. 6 383.1 383.8 /9. TABLE IV RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER ~T BLACK CANYON TO 1930 ~uantities in YearMonth 1923 J F M A M Gila Flow L. s s es, fA].gebr aic Yuma Correc t ed Cumul. Bfaek t o Porr ected Flow at Mas s, U. S.R. S. Diversion Laguna for U.B. Black C• M.A.Ft. Total 16.5 5. 5 95. o 2.0 A s D Total 1924 J F I M A M J J A 2.7 83.0 224.0 428.7 317.0 22.3 4.7 30. 6 2.0 91.0 85.9 108. 5 108. 5 0 N 376.4 7.5 ~7.5 90.0 90.0 90.0 111.0 116.0 112.1 93.5 109. 6 104.5 • 108. 5 1, 260.0 225. 0 90.0 90.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 900.0 91.0 85.9 108.5 108. 5 112.1 111.0 116.0 37. 5 37. 5 90.0 112.1 s D Total Laguna 112.1 J J 0 N 93.5 109.6 104. 5 108.5 1, 260. O 90 .0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37.5 37. 5 37. 5 37. 5 900.0 1925 J 89.3 84.3 106. 5 106·. 5 110. 5 109.0 F M A M J J 114.0 A & liT D Total thousands acre-teet. 65. 3 10.7 o.4 1.8 78.4 110.5 91.8 108.0 103.0 106.5 1, 240.0 37. 5 37.5 90.0 90.0 90.0 225. 0 90.0 90.0 37. 5 37. 5 37.5 37.5 900.0 112.0 339. 5 451. 5 384.6 117.9 333.0 450. 9 384.9 103. 5 540. 0 643., 385. 5 1,041.0 1,237.5 386. 7 196.5 202. 1 2,800.0 3,002.3 389.7 336.o 4, 932. 5 5,268.4 395.0 206.0 2,487.6 2,693.6 3 :97.7 202.1 1, 438.1 1,640.2 399.3 131.0 1, 244.1 1, 375.1 400. 7 144.3 714. 3 858. 6 401. 6 818. 6 59.0 877.6 403. 5 78.o 638.0 600.0 403.1 1, 731.1 17,434.5 19.165.8 - - 188.5 101.1 193.8 168.0 200.1 336.o 206.0 202.1 131.0 147.0 142.0 146.o l, '/b j . b 126.8 121. 8 196. 5·, 196.5 200. 5 334.0 20 5.0 200. 5 64.0 134.8 14-0. l 142.2 2,061.6 795.0 606. 5 491.0 592.1 520.0 713.8 1, 286.0 1,454.0 2,500.6 2, 7<1007 3,080.3 3,416.2 1,015.0 l, 221.0 224.7 426.8 161. 6 292.6 262.4 409.4 376. 5 518. 5 362.0 '508. 0. ll,07b.O 12,861.6 347.8 358. o 479.8 530. 8 727.3 1,068. 0 1,264.5 1, 732. 0 1,932.5 2,405.0 2, 739.0 1, 655. 4 1,859.4 687.8 882i3 1,190.0 l, 254.0 1,164.7 1, 299. 5 682, 7 822.8 482.0 624.2 12,180.3 14,241.9 221.0 403.8 404.4 405.1 406.6 409. 3 412. 7 413.9 414.3 414.6 415.0 415. 5 416.0 416.4 416.9 417. 6 418.9 420.8 423. 5 425.4 426.3 427.6 428.9 429.7 4,30.3 20. TABLE IV RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVER.AT BLACK CANYON TO 1930 Quantities in thousands acre-feet. Year- Gila Laguna Losses, Flow , ~lack t Month u.s.R.s. Diversion Laguna ··- 1926 J F M A M J J A s 1.0 0.2 228.0 21. 3 89.3 84.3 106. 5 106.5 110.5 109.0 114.0 110. 5 91.8 0 N 61. 7 D Total 4 .1 357.3 106. 1, 240.0 36.6 415.0 116.0 8.5 89.3 84.3 106.5 106.5 110.5 109.0 114.0 ' 110. 5 91.8 108.0 103.0 106. , 1927 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 2.0 54.8 33.2 f©S 'i 0 103.0 1, 2!0.0 1928 J F M A M 22.6 J J A s 0 N D Total 22.6 89.3 84.3 106. 5 1.06. 5 110. 5 109.0 114.0 110. 5 91.8 108.0 103.0 10 1,240.0 37.5 37.5 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37.5 37.5 37. 5 37.5 gebraic Total 125.8 . 121. 6 196.5 31.5 179.2 334.0 204.0 200. 5 129.3 83.7 140. 5 98.9 1,7 3.7 - 37.5 37, 5 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37.5 37.5 37. 5 37.5 00. 90.2 293.2 80.5 188.o 200. 2 334.0 204.0 198.5 74.5 145. 5 140. 5 37.5 37.5 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 126.8 100.0 196.5 196. 5 200. 5 334.0 200. 5 37.5 37. 5 37. 5 37. 900.0 144.0 204.0 129.3 145'. 5 140. 5 144.0 Yuma Corrected Cumul. Corrected Flow at Mass, for u.B. Black C. . A. Ft. 487. 430.8 362.0 415. 431. 2 294.0 642. 446.o 431.8 1,392.0 1, 360. 433.2 2, 738. o 2, 917. 436.J. 3,824. 439.9 ✓ 3,490. 1, 352. 0 1, 556.1 441. 5 442.2 498.o 698. 246. 442.6 375. 449.0 443.1 532. 258.8 399. -443.5 46 .o 6 . 9 444.2 11,991.0 13,773.7 284.0 374. 1,074.0 780.8 719.0 798.5 947.0 1,135.0 2, 965. o 3, 162. 3, 402.0 3.737.0 2, 626. 2, 830. 887.0 1, 086.1 887.6 1, 865. 3 1,057.3 1, 202. 8 733.9 874.4 466.o 6 1 , 9 1.0 18,457.8 444.5 445. 3 446.1 447.2 450.4 454.1 45'6.9 458.o 459.9 461.1 462.0 462.6 398.o 524.8 447.0 547.0 744.,5 548.0 797.0 993.5 3,257.3 3,457.8 3,806.0 4,140.0 1, 545. 1,746.4 526.0 730. 2 243.1 372.4 401. 6 547.1 444.0 - 584. 5 ~ 394.0 0 12, 703.0 14,820.4 463.1 463.6 464.3 465. 3 468.8 472.9 474. 6 475. 3 475.7 4~6.2 476.8 477.3 Z/. TABLE IV ' RECONSTRUCTION OF RlVER AT BLACK CANYON TO 1930 ~uantities in thousands acre-feet. ' YearMonth Gila Flow u.s.R.s. 1929 88.8 83.3 106.0 106.4 110.1 108.7 J F M A M J J ll3o4 A s 0 3. 6 1.9 N D ·rotal Corrected Cumul. Yuma Losses, Algebraic Corrected Flow at Maes, Black to for u.B. Black C. M.A.Ft. Total Diversion Laguna Laguna 110.6 90.7 107.1 102. 2 5. 5 106.6 l, 234.l 37.5 37.5 90.0 90.0 90.0 225.0 90.0 90.0 37. 5 37. 5 37.5 37. 5 900.0 126.@ 120 . • 196.0 196.4 200.1 333.7 203.4 200.6 125.0 143.0 139.7 144.1 2,128.6 223.0 268.0 6!,78. o 1, 436-~0 2,,120 .-1 4, 700.0 2,100.0 349.3 8808 ~'14.0 l, 626.o 2,920.1 5,033.7 2,303.4 2, 315. 6 1, 60 5. 0 1,078.0 603.7 505.1 2, 11 ,. o_ 1, ,ae.o 935.0 464.0 361.0 17,474.0 19,602.6 477.7 478.1 479.0 480. 6 483. 5 488. 5 490.8 493.1 494.7 495.8 496.4 496.9 2Z TABLE V FUTURE FLOW AT BLACK CANYON ~Uantities in millions acre-feet Year- ' Month Future Additional Diversion, Thousands A.Ft. 1899 J.l U)) .. , I 1j!, F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1900 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1901 J F M A M J A s 9) N D .. Mass 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, 0 50.0 l, 60 5.0 660.0 196.0 55.0 # 20.0 # 40.0 # 10.0 - 3, 910.0 0.02 0.1 0.1 o.4 1.5 3.1 3.7 3. 9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 - 3.9 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 1, 050 .o 1, 60 5.0 660.0 196.t) 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 ,o.o J Cumula tive 3i5.0 1,050.0 l, 60 5'. 0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 Present Mass at B:t aekr; G: any;e.r:i b,7 1.4 2.1 4.9 Net Future ~umulative Mass o.6 12.8 16.1 16.1 16.4 16.9 17.4 17.9 1.3 2.0 4. 5 7.0 9.7 12.4 12.2 12. 5 13.0 13. 5 14.0 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.3 5.3 6.9 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.8 - 7.8 18.6 19.4 20.1 22.9 26.5 30.8 33.2 33.2 33.3 33.6 33.7 33.9 14.7 14. 7 16.1 18.6 21. 2 23.9 25. 6 25.4 25.4 25.7 25.9 26.1 7.8 7.8 7.9 8.2 9.2 10.8 11.5 11.7 11.8 11.8 11.7 11.7 34.2 34.6 35.0 36.3 38.4 40.2 41.l 41.1 41.4 41.9 42.9 42.9 26.4 26.8 27.1 28.l 29.2 29.4 29.6 29.4 29.6 30.1 8. 5 31.i 31.2 TABLE V FUTURE FLOW AT BLACK CANYON. Q,uantli t i e s in mi l lion·s acre- feet. I Ye ar- Future Addi t iona.l Cumulative Mon t h Thousands A. Ft. Mass 1902 20.0 F J M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1903 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1904 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Presen t Mass at Black Canyon Net Future Cumulative Mass 11.7 43.2 31. 5 30.0 50.0 315.0 1,050.0 1,605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 -3,910.0 11.7 11.8 12.1 13.1 14.7 15.4 15.6 15. 7 15.7 15. 7 15. 6 43.6 44.0 44.8 46.5 47.9 48. 3 48.3 48.6 49.1 49.5 50.0 31.9 32.2 32.7 33.4 33. 2 32.9 32.7 32.9 33.4 33.8 34.4 20.0 50.0 30.0 315.6 1,050.0 l, 605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 15. 6 15. 6 15. 7 16.0 17.0 18~6 19.3 19.5 19.6 19.6 19.5 19.5 50.3 50.6 51. 0 51. 7 53.4 56.1 57.4 58. 3 58. 6 59.2 59.6 60.0 34. 7 35.0 35. 3 35.7 36.4 37.5 38.6 38.8 39.0 39.6 40.1 40. 5 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 1,050.0 l, 60 5. 0 660.0 19.5 19.5 19.6 19.9 20.9 22.5 23.2 23.4 23.5 23.5 23.4 23.4 60.3 60. 6 61.0 61.4 62.9 65.1 65.9 66.7 67.3 68.1 68.6 69.0 40.8 41.1 41.4 41. 5 42.9 :th ve r sion, 195.0 55.0 20.0 40. 0 10.0 42.6 42.7 43.3 43.8 44.6 45'.2 45.6 TABLE V FUTURE FLOW AT BLACK CANYON ua.n l YearMonth i905 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1906 J F M A M J J A B 0 N D 1907 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Future Additional Di version, Thousands A• Ft. Cumulative Mass 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, 050. 0 23.4 23.4 23.5 23 . 8 24.8 26.4 27.1 2~.3 27 . 4 27.4 2i.3 27. 3 l, 60 5.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 -3, 910.0 ,. es 1n mi ions apre- f ee t . Present Mass at B1ack Canyon Net Future Cumulative Mass 46.o 47.0 49.1 50.2 51.2 53.8 54.5 54.8 55.0 55.6 56.3 57.0 69.4 70.4 72. 6 74.0 76.0 80. 2 81.6 82.1 82.4 83.0 83.6 84, 3 I 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, 050.0 1,605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 50 .0 315.0 l, 050.0 1, 60 5.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 31.0 27. 3 27.3 27.4 27. 7 28. 7 30. 3 31.2 31. 3 31.3 31. 2 31. 2 31. 2 31.2 31. 3 31.6 32.6 34.2 34.9 35.1 35.2 35.2 35.1 35.1 84.9 85. 4 86. 5 88.o 91.0 95. 7 97.7 98.6 99.2 100.0 100.6 101.8 57.6 58.1 59.1 60.3 62.3 65.4 66. 7 67.4 67.9 68.7 69.4 70.6 103.1 104. 2 105. 5 107. 5 109.6 115.0 120. 5 22.6 23.8 24.7 25.4 71.9 73.0 74.2 75.9 77.0 80.8 85.6 87.5 88.6 89-~ 90. 90.8 25.9 ZS: TABLE V FUTURE FLOW AT BLACK CANYON ~uantitiea in millions acre-fe et. ¥e arMonth 1908 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1909 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1910 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Future Additional Diversion in u.B., Thousands A. Ft. 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, 050.0 1,605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 -3, 910.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, 0 50.0 1,605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, 0 50.0 l, 60 5. 0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 Cumulative Present Mass at Mass Black Canyon Net Future Cumulative Mass 35.1 126. 5 127.0 127.9 128.9 30.4 132.7 34.3 135.5 136.1 36.8 37.4 138.0 91.9 29.7 93.4 93.9 94.6 95. 7 96.5 97.0 97.7 98.3 98.9 39.1 39.1 39.2 39. 5 40. 5 138.6 139. 3 140.3 35.1 35.2 35.5 36. 5 38.l 38.8 39.0 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1 142.0 43.0 145.2 151.2 155.8 158.1 160.9 161.9 162.5 163.1 43.0 164.0 42.1 42.8 43.0 60.9 43.l 43.0 43.0 43.l 43.4 44.4 46.o 46.7 46.9 47.0 47.0 46, 9 46.9 164.6 166.2 67.9 171.2 173.8 174.4 175.1 175.4 175.9 176.4 176.9 91.4 99.5 100.2 101.1 102. 5 104.7 109.1 113.0 115.1 117.8 118.8 119.5 120.1 121.0 121. 6 123.1 124.5 126.8 127.8 12 .7 12 2 128.4 128.9 129.5 130.0 1 0 TABLE V FUTURE FLOW AT BLACK CANYON - Quantities in millions acre feet : Year• Month 1911 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1912 J F M Future Additional Diversion in u.B., Thousands A. Ft. 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 1, 0 ,o.o 1, 605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 lQ10 -3,910.0 20.0 0 30.0 50.0 315.0 1,050.0 l, 605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 N D 10.0 A J J A s 1913 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 40.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, O50.0 l, 605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 Cumulative Present Mass at Mass Black Canyon 46.9 46.9 47.0 47. 3 .16 3 49.9 50.6 50.8 50.9 50.9 50.8 50.8 177.5 178.3 179.4 180.6 183.3 186.9 189.7 190.7 191.2 193.0 193.8 194.4 130.6 131.4 132.4 133.3 50.8 50.8 50.9 51.2 52.2 53.8 54.5 54.7 54.8 54.8 54.7 54.7 194.8 195.3 196.1 197.3 199.7 144.0 144.5 145.2 146.l 147.5 152.1 154.0 155.1 155. 7 156. 5 157.4 157.9 54.7 54.7 54.8 55.1 56.1 57. 7 58.4 58.6 58-7 58-7 58.6 58.6 212.9 213.3 214.0 215. 5 217.8 220. 5 205.9 208. 5 209.8 210. 5 211. 3 212.1 212.6 221.6 222.1 222.6 223.4 224.0 224.5 Net Future Cumulative Mass 13,.0 137.0 139.l 139.9 140.3 142.1 143.0 143.6 158. 2 158. 6 159. 2 160.4 161.7 162.8 163. 2 163.5 163.9 164.7 165.4 165.9 Zi. TABLE V FUTURE FLOW AT BLACK CANYON Q,ua.ntities in millions, acre-feet. Year- Month 1914 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 1915 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1916 J F M A M J J A s 0 -N D Future Additional Diversion in u.B., Thousands A. Ft. 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, 050.0 l, 60 5.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 ... 3, 910.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 1,050.0 l, 605.0 Cumulative Present Mass at Mass Black Canyon 58.6 58. 6 • 58.7 59.0 60.0 61.6 62.3 62.5 62.6 62. 6 62.5 62.5 62. 5 62. 5. 62.0 62.9 63.9 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10;;0 65..5 66.2 66.4 66.5 66.5 66.4 66.4 20.0 30.0 / 50.0 315.0 l, 050.0 66.4 66.4 66. 5 66.8 l, 605'.o 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 67.8 69.4 70.1 70.3 70.4 70.4 70.3 70.3 225.1 225.7 226.7 228.l 231.4 237.9 240.9 242.2 242.8 243.8 244. 5 245.0 • 245. 5 246.4 247.2 248.7 251.3 254.l 255.a 256.4 256.7 257.3 257.8 258.3 259.0 260.0 261.6 263.2 266.5 270.0 272.1 273.8 274.5 276.1 276.9 277.5 Net Future Cumulative Mass 166.5 167.1 168.0 171.4 171.4 176.3 178.6 179.7 180.2 181.2 182.0 182.5 183.0 183.9 184.6 185.8 187.4 l B8.6 189.6 190.0 190.2 190.8 191.4 191.9 19a.6 193.6 195.1 196.4 198.7 200.6 202.0 203. 5 204.l 205.7 206.6 207.2 28. TABLE V FUTURE FLOW AT BLACK CJ\NYON Year- - Future Additional Month 1917 Diversi0n in u,B,, Thousands A. Ft. J F 20.0 M A M 50.0 315.0 l, 0 50.0 l, 605.·o 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 J J A s 0 N D Total 1918 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1919 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 3Q.0 40.o 10.0 -3, 910.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, 050.0 l, 60 5.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 Q;uan t 1·t·1es in nu·111 oms 11iere- f ee t.• , I. Cumulative Present Mas s at Net Future Cunulative Mass Black Canyon Mass 70. 3 70.3 70. 4 70. 7 71. 7 73.3 74.0 74.2 74.3 74.3 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.3 74.6 75.6 77.2 77.9 78.1 78.2 78.2 78.2 78.l 30.0 50.0 315.0 1,050.0 l, 60 5.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 78.2 78.2 78.3 78.6 79.6 81.2 81.9 82.1 82.2 40.0 82.l 82.1 20.0 20.0 10.0 82.2 278.0 278. 5 279.1 280. 3 . 211.4 283.l 288.5 294.2 295. 6 296.2 296.8 297.3 297.9 298.4 298.8 299.7 300. 5 302.3 306.0 308.6 309.3 309.8 319.4 311.0 311.6 312, 3 312.8 313. 5 314.8 317.1 319.2 320.4 321.1 321. 5 22.0 322.~ 323. 207. 7 208. 2 208. 7 209. 6 ' 215. 2 220. 2 221.4 221.9 222• .5 223.1 223.7 224.2 224.6 225.4 225.9 226.7 228.8 230.7 231.2 231. 6 232" 2 232.8 233.5 234.1 234.6 235. 2 236.2 237., 238.0 238. 5 239.0 239.3 239.8 240.4 241. 2 TABLE V FUTURE FLOW AT BLACK CANYON ~ua.ntities in millions aore-feet Future Additional Di version in U.B., Month Thousands A. Ft. Year- 1920 J F M A .M. J J A s 0 N D Total 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 lt O50.0 1. 60 5.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 -3, 910.0 J 20.0 F 30.0 M J J A s 0 N D 1922 J F MA M. J J A s 0 N .u Cumulative Present Ma.ssmat Net Future Cu.mule. ti ve Mass Mass Black Canyon I 1921 M A l I 50.0 315.0 1,050.0 1,605.0 660.0 196.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 1. 0 50.0 1. 60 5.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 82.l 82.1 82.2 82.5 83. 5 58.l 85.8 86.o 86.1 86.o 86.o 86.o 324.l 326.0 327.1 328.3 331.1 338.8 341.5 342.7 343.3 343.9 344.7 345.3 86.o 86.o 86.1 86.4 87. 4 89.0 89.7 89.9 346.o 346. -5 347.5 348.5 351.3 358.o 360.8 362.7 363.8 364.5 365.1 365. 9 260.0 260. 5 261. 4 262.1 263.9 269~0 366.6 367.3 368.3 369.6 373.1 379.0 381.0 381.6 382.2 382.6 383.l 383.8 276.7 277.4 278.3 279.3 281.8 286.1 287.4 287.8 288.3 288.7 289.3 290.0 90.0 '-0 5 §fl9.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 90.0 90.3 91.3 92.9 93.6 93.8 93.9 93-~ 93. 93.8 242.0 243.9 244.9 245.8 24f.6 253.7 255.7 256.7 257.2 257.8 258.7 259.3 271.1 - 272.8 273.8 274. 5 275.2 276.0 ao. TABLE V FUTURE FLOW AT BLACK CANYON Quantities in millions aore-feet Year- Future Additional Diversion in U.B., Thousands A. Ft. Month 1923 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Total 20.0 \ 30.0 50.0 315.0 1. 0 50.0 1. 605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20, 0 40.0 10.0 -3, 910.0 Cumulative Present Mass at Mass Bla.ok Canyon 93.8 93.8 93.9 384.5 384.9 385. 5 386.7 389.7 395.0 397.7 399.3 400. 7 94.2 95.2 96.8 97.5 97.7 97.8 97.8 97.7 97.7 401.6 402.5 403.1 Net Future Cumula. ti ve - Mass 290.7 291.1 291.6 292. 5 294.5 298.2 300. 2 301. 6 302.9 303.8 304.8 30 ,. 4 1924 J F M .A M J J A s 0 ~ D 1925 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 1. 0 50.0 l, 60 5.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 1,050.0 1, 60 5. 0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 97.7 97.7 97.8 98.1 99.1 100. 7 101.4 101.6 101.7 101.7 101.6 101.6 101.6 101.6 101.7 102.0 103.0 104.6 105. 3 105. 5 105.6 105.6 105. 5 105. 5 403. 8 404.4 40,5..l 400.6 409.3 412.7 413.9 414.3 414.o 415.0 415.5 416.o 416.4 416.9 417.6 418.9 420.8 423. 5 425.4 426.3 427.6 428.9 429.7 430. 3 306.1 306. 7 307.3 308. 5 310. 2 312.0 312. 5 3J.a7 312.9 313. 3 313.9 314.4 314.8 315. 3 315.9 316.9 317.8 318.9 320.1 320.8 322.0 323.3 324.2 324.8 3/. TABLE V FUTURE FLO,N AT BLACK CANYON YearMonth Future Additional !Di version in U .B·r , Thousands <mre ft. Cumulative Present Mass at Mass Bla.ok Canyon Net Future Cumula.ti ve Mass J.'-}2b J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1927 J F M A M J J 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 1. 050.0 l, 60 5'.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 105. 5 105.5 105. b 105.9 106. 9 10.0 108 •.5 109.2 109.4 109.,.5 109.5 109.4 109.4 20.0 109.4 20.0 40.0 30.0 50,0 315.0 l, 050.0 l, 605.0 109.4 109.5 109.8 110. 8 112.4 430.8 431.2 431.8 433. 2 437.1 439.9 441. 5 442.2 442.6 443 . 1 443.5 325.3 325. 7 326.2 327.3 329.2 331.4 332.3 332.8 233.l 333.6 444.6 445.3 450.4 454.1 45'6. 9 458.o 461.1 461.1 462.0 462. 6 335.1 335.9 336.6 337. 4 339.6 341.7 343.8 344.7 347.7 347.7 348.7 349.3 444.1 446 . l 447.2 334.l 3!4.7 0 N. 660.0 196.0 55.0 20.0 D 10.0 113.1 113.3 113.4 113.4 113.3 113.3 20.0 30.0 50.0 315.0 l, 050.0 1,605.0 660.0 196.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 113.3 113.3 113.4 113.7 114. 7 116.3 117.0 117.2 117.3 117.3 117.2 117.2 463.l 463.6 464.3 465. 3 468. 8 472.9 474.6 475.3 475.7 476. 2 476.8 477.3 348.8 350.3 350.9 351.6 354.1 356.6 357 . 6 358.1 358.4 358.9 359.6 360.1 20.0 117.3 117.3 477.7 478.l 479.0 480.6 483.5 488.5 490.8 493. 1 494.7 495.8 496.4 496.9 360.4 360.8 361. 6 362.9 364.8 368.2 369~8 371.9 373. 5 374.5 375. 2 375. 7 A s L928 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1929 J F M A M J J A s ij N D 40.o 30.0 50.0 315.0 1,050.0 1, 605.0 660.0 195.0 55.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 11'7 . 4 117.7480.6 118.7 120.3 121.0 121.2 121.3 121. 3 121.2 121.2 32. TABLE VI POVIER VARIATIONS AT BLACK CANYON DA1[. PRES:qiT Year- Head lonth Feet 1899 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1900 J F M A M J Jr A s 0 N D J M A M J J A s 0 N D Horse Power, Thousands Primary Secondary 480 477 473 488 5lll 538 538 538 538 537 532 527 775 771 765 790 826 870 870 870 870 868 860 853 523 520 517 532 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 845 840 836 860 870 870 870 870 870 870 870 870 537 537 533 534 537 537 537 537 531 525 520 515 870 870 863 864 870 sio70 870 858 850 840 833 1901 F FU'~URE 2,000 l, 550 2,670 1,080 €'G7 500 583 Head Feet Horse Power, . Thousands Seconda PrimarJ1 482 480 480 497 510 528 537 535 532 529 527 523 547 545 545 565 579 600 610 6o8 605 600 598 595 532 515 522 535 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 595 585 593 608 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 537 537 533 535 538 533 528 519 513 510 508 507 610 610 605 608 612 605 600 590 583 579 577 576 666 l, 330 1, 580 750 33. TABLE VI PO:w.ER VARIATIONS AT BLACK CANYON DAM. PRESENT Year- Head Month Feet 1902 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1903 J F M A M J J A s 0 N -n 1904 J F M A M J J A s ¢) N D Horse Jower, Thousands Spilled Primary 508 502 495 493 498 502 495 488 477 473 455 460 821 812 800 797 799 812 800 790 772 765 736 452 731 714 703 697 708 736 747 736 725 713 700 687 442 435 432 438 455 462 455 448 441 433 425 415 403 3§3 3 3 388 404 400 397 390 383 376 365 744 672 653 636 620 628 654 648 643 631 620 608 591 : ]1UTURE ) Head, Feet 502 498 495 495 492 482 472 463 457 453 450 447 442 438 433 428 428 430 433 428 418 Horse Power, Thousands Primary Spilled 570 566 562 562 558 547 536 526 519 515 511 508 502 498 492 486 486 488 492 486 405 475 471 468 460 398 392 385 375 383 367 355 353 348 348 345 338 452 445 437 426 435 417 403 401 395 395 392 384 415 412 TABLE ll POWER VARIATIONS AT BLACK CANYON DAM. FUTURE PRffiSE~TT Year... Month 1905 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1906 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1907 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Head, Horse Power, Thousands Feet Primary 345 352 370 375 387 430 433 427 415 408 400 395 Spilled Head, Horse Po"vver, Tho..tsands Feet Primary 573 570 598 607 626 696 701 691 671 660 647 639 330 333 355 360 364 390 388 380 372 368 367 365 375 381 403 388 378 378 383 412 453 462 460 455 452 448 449 628 611 611 620 667 735 748 745 738 734 725 726 363 358 362 367 385 417 423 422 451 451 453 463 470 508 537 537 537 537 537 537 730 730 734 748 761 822 870 870 870 870 870 870 422 412 407 411 417 437 474 481 480 475 475 471 480 428 432 435 445 447 477 513 523 527 528 528 525 487 491 494 506 508 542 583 595 598 599 599 597 418 418 415 1,000 833 409 413 443 441 432 423 418 417 415 Spilled TABLE VI POWER VARI ATIONS AT BLACK CANYON DAM. PRESENT Year- Head, M~nth Feet 1908 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1909 J F , M A M J J A s 0 N D 1910 J :§r M A M J J A s 0 N D 540 532 527 523 523 532 533 530 523 517 509 505 498 492 487 490 505 537 537 537 537 536 537 537 536 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 FUTURE Horse Power, Thous,ands Primary Spil led 1,130 Head, Feet Horee Power, Thousands Primar: Spilled 1,100 1,095 1,095 1,115 1,117 1. 111 1,095 1,080 1 062 1,055 520 515 513. 508 503 500 500 49'7 491 488 483 478 805 798 795 787 780 775 775 770 761 756 750 740 l, 040 l, 028 473 470 470 480 510 535 537 537 537 537 537 734 728 724 728 744 790 829 833 833 833 833 833 537 537 537 537 537 537 536 537 533 528 523 518 833 833 833 833 833 833 833 833 827 819 811 803 l, 115 1 1,018 1,025 1,055 1,122 1,122 l, 122 1,122 l, 122 1,122 1,122 m, 122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 467 750 2,670 750 1,165 333 1, 582 167 167 583 1, 332 333 250 l, 082 ,36. TABLE VI POWER VARIATIONS AT BLACK CANYON DAM. PRESENT Year- Head, Month Feet 1911 J F M A ,M J J A s 0 N 1) J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1,122 1,115 1,108 1,105 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 537 533 527 528 523 537 537 536 537 537 537 537 1,122 1,105 1,102 1,104 1,095 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 537 537 534 535 537 537 537 537 535 530 523 515 1,122 1,122 1,108 1,110 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,110 1,108 1,094 1,075 1913 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Horse Power, Thousands Primary Spilled 536 533 530 528 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 1912 FUTURE : \ 250 1, 750 • 1, 165 2,915 1, 665 500 1,082 } Hea.d, Feet : Horse Power, '!'hot sands Spilled Primary . 513 510 509 508 513 522 530 527 521 527 525 521 795 790 788 787 795 809 821 817 807 817 814 807 515 508 505 502 507 537 537 537 537 536 534 530 798 788 782 780 785 833 833 833 833 831 828 821 523 517 512 513 515 51g 50 502 495 492 488 482 812 801 793 794 798 798 788 779 767 762 756 746 667 36, TABLE VJ. POWER VARIATIONS AT BLACK CANYON DAM . PRESENT Year- Head, Month Feet 1914 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1915 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1916 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 507 500 497 496 513 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 536 532 527 527 537 537 537 535 528 518 Horse Fower, Thousands Pri mary Spilled 1,060 1,045 1,038 l ; 036 1,072 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,915 1,332 1,120 1,113 1,102 l,J02 1i122 510 1,122 1,122 1,118 1,104 1,082 1,122 1,065 504 500 502 503 520 537 537 537 537 532 527 520 1,053 1,045 1,049 1,051 1,087 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,113 1,102 1,087 53'1 FUTURE 1,167 167 583 250 Head, Feet Horse ~o wer, Thousand s Primary Spilled 477 473 470 493 482 517 528 528 522 520 517 512 739 734 728 765 747 " 802 818 818 810 80'6 802 793 507 505 502 503 508 507 500 493 487 482 507 477 785 783 778 779 786 785 775 765 755 747 785 738 472 472 476 478 488 497 499 502 498 502 500 495 731 731 737 740 757 770 773 778 772 778 775 767 37. TABLE VI POWER V.A..~IATIONS AT BLACK CANYON DAM:. PRESENT Year- Head, M0 nth Feet 191'1 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1918 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1919 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Horse P~wer, Thousa ds Primary Spilled 512 504 497 495 507 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 1,070 1,053 1,038 1,033 l, 060 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 537 533 529 522 526 537 537 537 537 534 528 521 1,122 1,106 1,093 1,100 1,122 1,122 1,-122 1,122 1,115 1,105 1,090 515 507 508 498 507 513 510 504 495 48g 47 472 1,075 1,060 1,062 1,040 1,058 1,075 1,065 1,050 1,035 1,115 1,000 987 FUTURE ~ 417 2,750 833 l, 115 833 1,000 Head, Feet 490 484 478 477 483 507 537 Horse Power, Thousands Primary Spilled 533 528 524 760 750 741 740 749 786 833 833 832 827 818 812 518 512 508 504 502 510 517 510 50 5 500 496 493 803 793 787 780 778 790 802 790 781 775 769 765 488 482 478 477 478 473 467 462 455 447 441 438 756 747 740 739 740 734 723 716 705 692 685 678 g§i 417 38. TABLE VI POVVER VARIATIONS AT BLACK CANYON DAM. PRE SENT Year- Head, Month Feet 1923 - F M A Ni J J A s 0 N D 1921 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1922 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D \ Head, Horse Power, Thousands Spill ed Primary 476 470 468 465 478 534 537 537 535 530 523 516 1, 122 1,122 1,117 1,108 1,094 1,079 510 503 498 495 507 537 537 537 536 537 537 537 1,065 1, 050 1,040 1,033 1,058 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1,122 1, 122 537 534 530 528 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 1,122 1,116 1,108 1,103 1,122 1,122 1,122 1, 122 1,122 1, 122 1,122 1, 122 976 982 978 972 1,000 1,115 750 1,415 1,165 416 Fee t Horse Power, Thousand s Primary Spilled 435 443 442 440 448 495 503 503 497 492 490 485 674 688 687 682 695 767 780 780 770 763 760 751 481 475 473 469 476 746 736 734 727 737 793 809 814 813 809 803 798 512 521 525 524 521 518 515 505 1,000 2,915 l, 250 FUTURE 510 508 50 5 500 537 537 537 534 529 525 521 790 788 783 783 775 833 833 833 527 804 813 807 750 39 . TABLE VI POWER VARIATIONS AT BLACK CANYON DAM. PRES]!NT Year - Head, ,, M<Snth ' FUTURE Hors e Po wer , Th ousan ds Feet Primary 537 537 532 520 517 537 537 537 537 537 537 53'7 l,122 1.122 l, 113 1,087 1,080 1,122 1,122 1,122 l, 122 l, 122 l,122 1,122 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 1, 122,. 1,122 l, 122 1,122 1,122 1,122 l, 122 1,122 528 521 512 510 515 527 530 527 525 52~ 51 510 l,103 l, 090 . l, 070 l, 065 l, 075 1,102 ;i., 108 1,102 Head, Spilled Fe e t Horse Power, Thousands Primary Sp i lled : 1923 J F M A M J 1 A s 0 N D 1924 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1925 J F M A M J J A s 0 .N D l, 122 1,122 1,122 1,122 · 1,097 1,0~3 l, O 2 1,065 2,915 2,000 167 1,000 1,665 517 510 505 503 512 534 537 537 537 537 537 537 535 532 502 503 533 538 534 527 517 510 507 502 495 490 485 483 482 482 483 478 480 482 478 475 802 790 783 780 793 828 833 833 833 833 833 833 830 825 778 780 826 835 829 818 803 791 786 779 768 760 752 750 748 748 750 742 745 748 742 736 500 250 167 40- TABLE VI POWER VARIATIONS AT BLACK CAl\'fYON DAM. Year- Head, PRE SENT Horse Powe r,,---· Month Feet Primarv 1920 J F M A .M J J A s 0 N D 1927 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D 1928 J F M · A M J J A s 0 N4f 3 D 1929 J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Thousan d~ 503 495 487 486 500 521 523 515 507 498 . 490 483 473 467 461 457 475 497 508 505 509 507 503 497 488 479 472 468 488 512 514 517 498 490 475 465 456 450 452 467 500 507 515 518 514 498 478 S1>illed 468 463 457 457 465 475 473 467 458 453 447 l, 050 1,033 1io15 1,013 1,044 1,090 1,095 1,075 l, 058 1,040 1,022 1,110 990 976 964 955 993 1,038 1,060 1,055 1,062 1,058 l, 050 1,038 1,018 1,000 987 987 1,018 1,070 1,074 1,080 1,040 1,022 1,010 993 973 953 940 945 976 1. 045 1,058 1,075 1,082 1,073 l, 040 1,000 FUTURE Headp,,.' ,,c l'DHorpe Power, Tinou r.; :i;.nc.!Bhousa~ds Spill& PF tit:e"t -r: 1 Primary 441 433 430 425 422 435 445 455 · 453 472 462 460 456 44 450 443 438 433 448 463 462 456 447 442 437 430 420 410 :gg 418 445 450 460 465 463 460 455 726 719 708 708 721 736 733 724 711 703 693 685 672 667 659 655 675 690 706 704 783 716 713 708 698 688 680 672 695 718 716 707 693 686 678 667 652 635 628 633 648 690 698 713 721 718 713 706  ET 2 } Ff; Acre= : ILLIONS OF CUMULATIVE MASS CURVES OF THE BELLE EHOLO RA DO: - REWER | ne SA RECONSTRUCTED 70 BLACK CANYON icc NFOR PRESENT & FUTURE CONDITIONS oI + | BLACK AREAS REPRESEN PRESENT. SPL FUTURE sas JER cls? SY NE a SS es In gS bat ROT REY A