..•.

Mexico, D. F., August 29, 1929-

To the Internatio al Vate Co ission,United otates and Mexico:

Complying with your verbal instructions of August 21, theundersigned Technical Advisers submit herewith in duplicate~ata relating to Colorado River and its use.\ The data are submitted in sheets 1, 2, 2-1/2, 3, 4, 4-1/2,

5, 6, 6-1/2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-1/2, and 11, which are attachedheretoT

The main headings under which the data are submitted areas follows:

(1)(2)

(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

Acreage irrigated from Colorado River.Maximum quantity of water delivered from ColoradoRiver in Lower California in anyone year.Flow of Colorado River.Land irrigated, by States and Countries.Land under canals.Land in new projects under development.Land ultimately irrigable if sufficient water wereto be available.

Adams, American section.

NOTE: Owing to lack of time it is necessary to submit thedata in unsatisfactory form. As soon as the report can be re-copied it will be re-submitted for the record and this copywithdrawn. Thene will, however, be no changes in the data.

WA TER RESOURCES tENTER ARCHIVESUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

BCRKElfY~ CAlIFQRNM

Sheet 1.

(1) Acreage irrigated (cropped) from Colorado River.o

(a) In. U. S. 1920 (Sen. Doc. 142). -Upper Basin 1,526,000 Acres.

Lower BasinMain StreamGila

508;000430,000 2,464,000

190,000In Mexi co 1920Mr-. Favela estimate anadditional 30,000 acresfrom the Hardy in 1920in the Chinn and Griveltract. Mr. Adams does notconcede this a·reage as-admisib1e ~eaause theproject was a failureand no permanent agrioyulture wasestablished.-See sheet 2t.-Later data.for entirebasin in U. S.Upper basin 1922(Weymouth report)Lower basin 1920 (S.D.No/ 142) Substituting1926 figures for YumaProject and 1928 figuresfor Imperial District.Gila, 1920 (S~n.Doc.142)

507,156430,,000

Total in U. S.In Mexico 1928.From Imperial CanalFrom siphonsFrom Yuma Projectwaste San Lu's,Sono

171,74619,7001,250('1-- 192.626 2,576,852 Acro

( ,) Mr. Adams b~liev~s~ that this acreage is in a differentcategory from direct diversions from the river since itis irrigated entirely from drainage and waste of EastMain Canal from 'the Tuma Erojeot.

'0

(c) Sheet 2.Below Ywna 1908 to 1909.(From Imperial Irrigation District, with figures forsiphons in Mexico in 1928 and 1929 from J. C. Allison)

Sheet 21-.

(d) Mr. Favela reports that in 1920 part ofthe Chinn and Grivel tract of 25,66, hectares(66,670 ,acres) lying south and west of El Mayorwas planted to cotton and irrigated by pumpingfrom Hardy River.- There are no records SVi 11able but heestimates that 30,000 aores was irrigated.-- Althoughthe cotton plants grow well the orop was a failure.-In 1926 the same pumps were used to irrigate a smallerarea direotly south El Mayor.Q The pumps ha~e notsinoe been used.-

Sheet ,.

The maximun area irrigated in any year in Mexico asshown by the above table w s 216,912 acres, in 1925. Mr.Adams claims that this figure is high and should be about190,000 to 195,000 acres. In support o:f this.claim it isstated that due to water shortage and prorating in 1924,estimates of areas to be irrigated in 1925 were high, inorder to protect against possible prorating. It was foundthat in ;6 c ses the area reported in crop exceeded the totalshown by the lease maps, the total of this excess area being491~ cres. ;6 use~. claimed an excess acreage in crop, thepresumption is that others did. Also Mr. Adams sugge&ts thatthe areas irrigated in 1924 and 1926 indicate a lower :figurethan that reported for 1925.

Against the above claim o:fMr. Adams is the :factthat that the duty o:f water in 1925, using the full 216,912acres, viz: '.3$ acre-:feet per acre, is substantially thesame as the average duty :for 1911 to 1928, viz: ;.40 -acre-:feet per acre.

•

( 2)

Sheet 4.

aximun queantity of water delivered from Colorado Riverin any year.

Mro .Adams states that no data ar-e available on thispoint except for Imperial Valley in the United States andMexicd.- The quantities have gradually increased, with yearto-year fluctuations up and down.- For the past ten yearsthe deliveries have been ~s"given below.- Those for theUnited states for the years 1923 to 1928 represent deliveriesto farms, and are considered by Imperial Irrigation Districtto be at least 10 per cent low due to method of gate measurement , All of the figures for! exj,co represen t deliveries fromthe main canals.-

United St'ates. Lower California.(Acre-feet) (Acre-feet)

1919 "10202,356 494,9801920 1.220,054 572,4691921 931,019 385,1851922 935,Om 539,9711923 928,146 606,2761924 1.050,706 613,6671925 1.052,329 728,5291926 1.129,519 679,3871927 1.307,030 573,,5881928 1.494,831 712,255 (&)

(&) Does not include 37,000 acre-feet including 10 per centfor canal losses from siphons. Adding this gives 749,255acre-feet~ This 749,255 acre-feet is t~e maximum quantitydelivered from Colorado River in any one yea~.Does not inc1uae the water that has been used from YumaProject waste in San Luis Colony in Sonora.

Sheet 4t.

Mr. Allison reports the following record for siphondiversions and deliveries from January 1 to August 25.

24-Hr!sec.ft. Acre-ft •.Diversions from RiverEstimate to completefor 1929 season . 2.500)

,90,100.;· .

Gate deliveries to ranchersEstimate to completefor 1929 season .2.000

FLOW AT LEES FERRY.Mea ured and computed, 1895 - 1923,(Pag~. 77 S.D. 186- 70th. Congress2nd. Session) - tw.s.P. No.556 -Page 108 La Rue).-----~--------------.Annual fluctuation(Pag. 46 S.D. 186 - 70th. Congress,2nd. Session).

8,850.000 to(1902)

21,20·0.000 Aare-feet.(1909)

Flow at Lees Ferry corrected for pastand future depletion. (Pag. 46 S.D. 186,70th. Congress, 2nd. Session).---~-------

FLOW AT YUMAMeasureq 1903-1920.(Pag. 208 S. D. 14267 Congress, 2nd. Session) Mean.--------Bureau of Reclamation estimate as reducedby Colorado River Board (Sen. Doc. 186, -page 44.)---~--~-----------------~-------Annual fluctuation(Pag. 220 S. D. No. 142)7,960,000 to 26,000,000_acre-ft.(Pag. 45 s. D. 186)8,000.000 to 31,000.000 " "

GILA RIVER AT YUMAMeasured flow 1903 - 1920 (Sen.Doc.142, page 219)

(1902 - 1920)(1878 - 1927)

'.Annual fluctuation -

1903 - 1910 (Sen. Doc. 142, p.219)61,000· to 4,490.000 acre-feet.

Sheet 5.

Acre-feet.

15,200.000

6,880,000

17,400.000

1,060.000

(4) Shee.t 6.LANDS IRRIGATED BY STATES.

(U. S. 186 page 47) .Upper basin (Weymouth Report 1922)

MEXICO(')(1928) - -

Imperial Canal~---- .•-------- 171,746 (II)Siphons -------------------- 19,700Yuma ProjectWaste and drainage, San Luis,Sonors,.--------------------- _h250 (II')

Total in basin (EKclusive oftrasmountain diversion)-----

WYoming --------------------Colorado --------------------Utah ------------------------New Mexico ------------------Lower Basin (SoD. 142 andsubsitution of 1926 figuresfor Yuma Project,and 1928figures for Imperial Valley)Nevada NoneArizona(S.D. 142 page 33)Gila Valley-------.----------(S.D. 142 page 48)Parker Ind. Resg-~----------Yuma Project (Calif.and Ariz.)California(S.D. 142 page 43)Palo Verde Valley-----------(Imp. Irrig. Dist.)Imperial Valley --~---------

Total in U. S.

Acres-235,000

800,000370,00042,000 1,447,000

430,0004,00061,213 495,213

35,0004-06,943

,-" ~ " " , , , .•

441,943. 93'1',1262,384,156

192,696

-----------(t) Total area reported irrigated from Imperial Canal

in Mexieo in 1920 was 190,000 ~~e~. If there.were to be addedto this the 300000 acres Mr. Favela estimates waa irrigated -fr m the Hardy in that year in the Chinn and Grivel tract thetotal for 1920 would a~ 220,000 acres. Mr. Adams has no dataand can not question Mr. Favela's estimate. However he callsattention to the fact that the land has not been irrigated since1920. He therefore. considers that this 1920 diversion from theHa-rdy can not be included in dete~ining the total area thusfar irri~ated from Colorado River in M xico. .

(IlJTotal reported irrigated in 1925 was 216,912 acres.For ex~lanation see sheet 3.-~",) Not conceded by Mr. Adams as from Colorado River.Mr. Favela dos not agree with Mr. Adams on this point.

Sheet 6-t.

Total area irrigated in Mexico from ImperialCanal and Pescadero siphons.

It has already been stated that· the maximum areaj

reported irrigated in anyone year in Mexico from ImperialCanal was 216,912 acres. As previously stated this fi@1lreis considered .too high by Mr. Adams (See sheet 3). To obtainthe total area thus·far irrigated there has been added to thearea irrigated in 1925 the increases under the canals inMexioo since then. The total of the increaes, exclusive ofthe Pesoadero siphons, is 6,300 acrea. (See sheet 8). Theincreases under the siphons of lands actually irrigated is19,700 acres (See sheet 2). These total increases amount to26,000 acres.

If it is assumed that the area irrigated in 192, wasthe 216,912 acre~ reported, the total thus far irrigated W9u1dO~ 242,912 acres. Using 190,000 to 195,000 acres as the areaactually irrigated in 192" as suggested by Mr. Adams, andadding the increase of 26,000 acres, the total area that has thusfar received water in Mexico from Imperial Canal and Pescaderowould be 216,000 to 221,000.-

( 5 , LANDS NOW UNDER CAN"ALS.Upper Basin.

The only' information under this headfor the upper basin is t~e area irrigated in1922 as given in Senate Document 186, Page 47, viz:

Acresoming------~------------------- 235,000

Colorado-~----------------------- 800,000Utah----------------------------- 370,000New exico----------------------- 42,000(A iater figure in Sen. Doc. 186, page 48;gives the total area as 10358,000 acres.)

Lower Basin.Figures for the lower basin for various

dates ~nd from various sources (principallycompilation by Frank Adams, 1926; Bol. 21,California state Dept. Of Public Works; M. J.Dowd, Chief engineer of Imperial IrrigationDistrict; Mr. J. C. Allison and r. J. L.Favela) are as follows, all areas north ofPalo Verde Valley being only'those frrigafed.

Nevada -'Cottonwood Island 315

Arizona -cottonwood valley (1923)- 200Indians Fork (1915)------ 275Parker Ind. Ees. (1926) 6000North Gila Valley (1926) 4128Yuma project- (1926) 66298 76,901

California -Palo Verde Valley (1927)45000Yuma Ind. Res •.(1926) 15000Imperial Valley (1929) 478000 538000Total lower basin in U. s.Total in U. S. counting only areas

irr~gated in the upper basin as underoanals, sinoe there are no other data(round numbers)----------------------

Sheet 7.

Acres

1.447,000

615,216

2.062,000

Sheet 8.

LANDS UNDER CANALS (Continued)

:MEXICO -

(a) Lower California -. Acre.sArea reported irrigated in 1925Additions under canals since 1925~ast High Line 25Ash 34Encina & Wistaria 1239Woodbine 27Woo Sao 435,~aredones b20Siphons from .".,.,J?eacadero CutTotal from ImperialCanal and siphons

216,912

6,300'27,100

250,312Bella Vista from HardYRiver south El MayorChinn and Grivel tractfrom Hardy River

Total Lower California

110 (t)

30.000 (,)280,422

(b) SonoraSan Luis Colonies from~uma.Project waste

Total in Mexioo8,600 ( tI)

(See footnotes)288,922

Total in entire basin, exclusive oftrasmountain diversions given in Senate Documeent 186, page 50, as 186,400 a cre-feet.~---- 2,350,922 (See foot)notes(I) Not oonceded b,y Mr •.Adams as ~dmissable.- .~i~~. See~ explanation on sheet 2io-

(tI) Not conceded by Mr. Adams as from Colorado River.

Sheet 9.

(6) Lands in new projects nGW under development.UNITED STATES.

Ho reliable data for united states.Boulder Canyon bill authorises appropiation

of $250,000 to determine feasible projects.MEXICO.Mr. Favela submits the following:Lower CaliforniaDelts Canal siphonsBa.Jj:aCalifornia CanalSiphons

34,550200,000234,550Total Mexico -----_ ..

Sumary of total area under canals and in newprojects under development.

UNITED STATES.

Under cB~als (nata incomp~.te; see --details sheet 7)

Under new p~oject5 (No data; seeabove)IvrEXICO.Under canals (See details sheet 8)Hew projects (See details above)

Total MexiCO

ACRES

2.062,000

---------288,9222.34,530

523,452-------

Sheet 100

Lands ul-timately irrigable from Colorado River if suf-ficient water were to be available. (Figures for United States esubmitted by Mr. Adams from various sources and with minor excep-tions, they represent the claims of the various states and sectionsoFigures -for Mexico submitted by Mr. Favela from data prepared bythe Mexican Government.- (No agreement betwen Mr. Adams and MesarsoSanta Cruz and Favela).

"

Upper~Easin (Weymouth Rept.sen, Doc. 186, page 47)Wyoming 757~000Colorado 2,260,000Utah 723,000New Mexico 447,000

Lower basin -Nevada (Sen.Doco186 p.78)Arizona (')Parker Praject 110,000Yuma Project 93,000Parker Gila 632,000-

Minor areas -Cottonwood 4500Bullhead 500Hardysville 2300Mojave 30300Chem.Val. 3000Wms.F.R. 1600Cibola Val. 16000Below CibolaValley _1:QQ.Q.

California ...''..Mojave Valleycnem, ValleyOpposite ParkerPalo Verd¢-Valley(x) (Palo Verde ~esa

(xx) (Chuc~~walla Val.. Yuma Ind. Res.(Imperial and-(Coachella ValSe

Acres.

4,187,00015,000

62.200 897,2001,0002,0004,000

79,00040,000124,00015,000

1.166,000 1431,000 2,343.1.009..J' •. , i • • • • • • .' ~ •. •. • •. •. "-Total area in United States

exclusive of coastal plain ofCalifornia and upper trasmoun-tain diversions. 6,530,000

...•{t)Does not include 10368,000 a cres in proposed Ari~8na High line- Project in addition to the area in the proposed Parker Q GilaProject.

(x)Includes pumping lifts up to 250 feet.(xx) Gravity, 805,888 acres; pump lift under - 30 ft., 39,266 acres;. pmnp lift under - 125 ft., 170,630 acres; pump lifte under -

150 ft., 34,840 acres; pump lift under - 200 ft., 32,000 acres;pump lift under - 250 ft., 13,,00 acres; pump lift under400 ft., 7,580 acrest-

,heet loi.

timate trasmountain ve sions in th pp

basin a e e t mate on page 4, en. oc. 196, as554,000 a e-feet, and r. A~ tates that hen ex tands that thi haa since been increased.

The 01 1m of the Metropolitan tel' Distr1 t ofouthern Califor 'a is for an avera e of 1500 c ,

ft. per eo. or app a imately 1.,086,000 acre-feet.Th 01· of n Di a for 155 c .ft. er s •or pp oximately 112,200 ere-feet.

Irrigable areas (continued)MEXICOSonoraEast of old cDannel of ColoradoRiver North of Lerdo ColonyoSouth of Lerdo Colony •.San Luis Mesa and Lerdo Colony(pumping lift under 7$ ft).

Total Sonora.Lower California.

Irrigable from Alamo Canal andsiphons and in Delta region.Algodones Mesa.(Pumping liftunder 75 ft.)East foot of~Cucapa Range. Slope,(Pumping lift under 60 ft.).Laguna Salada. -~~gu~a Salada Slop~s, (pumping11ft under 80 ft).

Sheet:. II

Acres.

63,6001'11,000

....12:0.80058~,4.00

862,700.59,40035',800

285,300133,300

Total Lower California.

TOTAL MEXICO. 1,961,900

Total ultimately irrigable,United States and Mexico, if sufficientwater were to be available (not countingtransmountain and Souther California ooast-al plain diversions), round numbers. 8.$00,000 Acres.

• I •J

,'\

'\l

j / I .

WATER RESOURCES CENTER ARCHIVESU~IVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

:MEMORAlIDillJISUBMITTED BY THE CaMPANIA DE TERRENOSY AG.UASDE LA BAJA CALIFORNIA IN CONNECTION WITHTHE APPLICATION PRESENTED BY THE COLORADO RIvERLAND COMPANY FOR THE USE OF THE WATERS OF THE. SAME RIvER

·For many years prior to the oommenoementor irrigation in Imperial Valley, the river rolloweda eourse along the Sonora Mesa on the eaat side orthe delta, eaoh year overflowing its banks duringflood season and gradually building up its bed un-til it was much higher than any other part of thedelta~ The overflow water went to the west and souththrough many ohannels, the larger portion flowing in-to Volcano Lake Basin creating a lake or considerablesize. then passing on south through the Hardy River tothe Gulf. A portion of the overflow found its waydown the Alamo Channel, until this was made the mainoanal to Imperial Valley, and a small portion overflowedfrom Volcano Lake to the west down the New River Channelto Salton Sea.

By the year 1909, the slope of the deltato the west from the Sonora course had beoome sosteep that the river changed its oourse by diversionthrough the Bee or Abejas River - which had formerly

- 1 -

been a small overflow ehannel • some 20 miles southof the California-Mexico boundary, west into the Vol-cano Lake Basin. This new course was followed untilthe year 1922 when the river was diverted into thePesoadero Basin by the Compania I represent, thelatter courae being that it has followed ever~·since.

With the oommenoement of irrigation in Imper-ial Valley, oame the first protective levee, known asthe C.D. Levee, extending from the diversion works atAndrade a few miles south of the International Boundaryfrom which there has developed the protective system ofthe Compania as it exists today. ,inoluding some 76 milesof levee most of which is equipped with a standard gagerailroad and ~ock revetted on the river side.

In 1903, a dam was thrown aoross New Bivernear Volcano Lake to prevent overflow from the latterwhioh has already been mentioned •. This dam was grad-ually extended to form the Voloano Lake Levee and bythe year 1908 was seven miles long although only a fewteet in height. The diversion of the river into Vol-cano Lake in 1909 however, made it neoessary from thattime on ~o increase the height and length of the leveeeach year until the diversion into the Pesoadero Basin.Today, this levee is in good oondition and is st~ll con-sidered an important part of our protective system.

The original C.D. Levee was early extendedto a point some 15 miles ~outh of the InternationalBoundary. In l~ll, the Ockerson Levee was oonstruotedwith funds provided by the United States Government!oommencing at a pOint on the C.D. Levee about 10 m1 esbelow the Boundary and extending south parallel to andon the west side of the river for some 2·2 miles. Thislevee was built with the idea of oonfining the riverto its course along the Sonora Mesa from which it hadbDoken in 1909 into Volcano Lake, as already explained.The levee did not last through the first flood seasonbeing breached in many places and resulting in prao-tically a total loss. However, it provided a les$onin contrOlling the Colorado River whioh has provedvery valuable in later years. In many ways, the newlevee of the Baja California Canal Company presents asim1lar oondition and the same results may be anticipatedas shown by the breaks and raising of the water levelwhich was had this year.

- 2 -

The Saiz Levee was commenced in 1916 by anextension of the original C.D. Levee to the west somefew miles and it was further extended in 1917 and 1918to within about 3 miles of the Volcano Lake Levee. In1922, the Colorado River Land Company completed theremaining 3 miles but this section was not needed be-cause of the Pescadero Cut. In faot, the ·Saiz Leveenever was an important factor in proteoting the mainbody of land in Baja California or California, its mainpurpose being the protection of the small area of landlying between it and the Inter-California R.R. and eastof the Volcano Lake Levee but the funds for its oon-struction - except the last 3 miles - and maintenancewere provided by the Compania.

Following the 1909 diversion of the river,the course followed was through the Bee River to apoint about 3 miles east of the Volcano Lake Leveewhere it turned south parallel to the levee into thelake. During the suoceeding years, Bee River and thelatter ohannel were built up to a considerable heightas the silt oone extended to the south leaving a lowarea between it and the Voloano Lake Levee. In 1919,the main flow of the river broke into this low lyingarea oreating a dangerous situation as may readily berealized, although at that time the exaot oonditionswere not thoroughly understood. Had the river formedits ohannel next to the Volcano Lake Levee or if thelatter had been oonstructed along the west bank of thechannel and not allowed the formation of the pooket Ihave desoribed, the diversion to the Pesoadero Basinwould not have been nec~ssary as soon as it was.

In the year 1919, the Oekerson Levee waspart1ally reoonstruoted from the C.D. Levee to BeeRiver but was breaohed in several plaoes that sameyear and again 1n 1920. Following the flood season of1921 and in conneotion with the Pesoadero Diversion,the Ookerson Levee was raised, strengthened, providedwith a railroad, heavily revetted with rOok, and ex-tended to the north end of the then proposed dam.,aoross Be~ River - the extension is now known as theBee River Levee and the dam, the Pesoadero Dam.

- 3 -

Thus it may be seen, that until thePesoadero Diversion was undertaken, all of the landlying south of the Saiz Levee and east of the Vol~oano Lake Levee was subject to overflow eaoh yearand therefore, was impossible of oultivation. Inoonsidering the Volcano Lake situation, two planswere advooated, one being the oontinued maintainingor the Voloano Lake Levee and Saiz Levee as thefirst line of defense, using suction dredges forenlarging these levees, the other being the rebuild-ing and extension of the Ooker,son Levee and oonstruo-tion of the Pesoadero Cut. The latter plan was theone finally adopted, as it was believed this wouldresult in a general lowering of the flood plane inthe delta and that a ohannel would open up throughthe Pesoadero into the Hardy River and thenoe tothe Gulf, whioh would solve the flood problem formany years. However, there are many who still be-lieve that the former plan would have been thebetter in the long run and reeent developments lendstrength to their arguments; I refer to the attemptsto irrigate land in the Volcano and Pesoadero Basinsthereby eliminating these areas from being used forsilt storage and necessitating levees whioh haveoomplioated the flood problem and made it much ~orediffioult to oontrol.

Had the first plan been followed, that ofmaking the Voloano and Saiz Levees the first line ofdefense, the land lying south and east would have re-mained a part of the flooded area and oould not havebeen developed as the cost would not hav~ justified.In explanation, let me say that the C0mpania withfunds provided by the ]mperial Irrigation Districtof California has spent on the reoonstruotion of theOokerson Levee and the construotion Gf the Bee RiverLevee and Pescadero Diversion more than $l,a40,OOOand on the maintenance of these works over $324,000or a total expenditure of more than tl,564,OOO.

As has already been mentioned, it was oon-templated that as a result of the Pesoadero Diversion,a direot channel to the Gulf through the Hardy Riverwould be oreated. However, after one years operation

- 4 -

of the diversion it was seen that suoh a ohannel wouldnot be formed and would not even be feasible to oon-struct until the Pesoadero Basin had filled with silt.This was realized when it was found that although thePesoadero Cut had been excavated on·a slope of over 3teet to the mile, after the first year the uppe.r sever-al miles had been built up to a slope of less than 1.5feet per mile due to the formation of a silt oone atthe head of the out. Eaoh year this silt oone bas beenextended and widened by the deposition of silt for.minga slope baok ot it ot about 1.2 feet per mile whioh werefer to as the "stabilizing" grade of the river. Inview ot this situation, it was apparent that the deltashould not be restrioted as the more area the water hadto spread over - the greater the silting area - theslower would be the raising of the river bed and thelonger it would be before a dangerous oondition was had.Also, as the lower end of Voloano Lake had never beensilted 1n and was therefore quite lOW, it was hoped tout11ize this area when suoh beoame neoessary.

In planning the diversion, there were noestablished preoedents upon whioh to base the resultsand although it did not function exaotly as antioipatedit has reduoed the flood menaoe for a number of yearsand had the Compania been permitted to oarry out itsplans, the life of the diversion oould have been extend-ed for many years longer than will be possible underoonditions whioh have been oreated by other agenciesduring the past several years.

Prior to the year 1926, the Compania was thesole .agenoy tor hand11iig the protective work on theColorado River in Mexioo and, except in the few oasesalready mentioned, has provided all of the tunds forthis work. The Compania planned the work to best servethe needs of the entire oommunity; that we have beensuocessful needs no oomment, the safety enjoyed by. thelands in Baja Galifornia and California speaks foritself. There are few rivers in the world whioh presenta more diffioult problem of flood control than does theColorado and beoause ot the immense value of the invest-ments which are dependent upon our proteotive leveesystem, it is most sinoerely believed.that any question

- 5 -

affecting this problem should be most carefully oon-sidered in its relation to the entire situation.

In 1920, work was initiated by other agencieswhich tend to remove from the hands of the Companiathe control of the river. Additional steps have beentaken each year since. over the protest of the Compania,until at the present time the situation is suoh thatnot only has my Compania lost entire oontrol and futureplans been disrupted but also the menace to the irrigatedlands has increased and will get worse more rapidly astime passes. The work in 1926 referred to was the at-tempt by the D,lta Canal Oompany - in the name of ~heColDrado River Land Company - to extend the PescaderoLevee some 10 or 12 miles south adjacent to the riverdown aoross the silt oone to a junction with the loca-tion of the Mexicali and Gulf R,R~ Also, the plaoingunder irrigation of lands in Volcano Lake and therebyprecluding the use of the latter for silt storage.

The lands in Volcano Lake are privately ownedand it is reoognized that the owners, under ordinaryoonditions would be entitled to develop them. Theactual facts of the oase, however, were: 1st, that hadthe Pescaderp Diversion net been made these lands wouldhave remained a part of the flooded area; 2nd, thatpraotioally the entire oost of the Diversion was paidby the Compania with funds provided by the ImperialIrrigation District to which funds the lands in VoloanoLake oontributed nothing; 3rd, that this area is verylow and should not have been developed until silted in;4th, that this area was most important as a Siltingbasin to increase the effeotive life of the PesoaderoDiversion and thereby minimize the flood danger for agreater number ot years to the hundreds of thousandsat hectares already under orop; and 5th, that to pre-vent the flooding of Volcano Lake required the con-struction of a long levee extending below the silt coneWhich would restrict the delta, thereby increasing therate of the building up of the river bed and consequent-ly the height of the water against the levees of theCompania making more frequent raising of the leveesnecessary. Under these oonditions, it does seem thatjus~ice and equity to the Compania and the other lands

- 0 -

under irrigation would have required the irrigation oflands in Voleano Lake to be postponed for a few yearsat least.

But this was not done, instead, although thelevee started along the river by the Delta Canal Com-pany was a failure, another known as the Rodriquez Leveewas constructed a short distance west of the silt ooneand development of lands in Volcano Lake oontinued.Although when first constructed this levee was only atew teet high, due to the faot that it extends aheadof the silt oone, the water surface hal shown a raiseot over 2 feet per year making neoessary a correspondingraising of the levee and it is a certain faot that itwill only be a matter of a few years until the levee isat least 20 feet in he1ght, that is if it does not failbefore or due to cost of maintenance, is not abandoned.

Now, despite the knowledge gained by experiencewith the original Ookerson Levee, the Pescadero Diversionand the attempt to develop Voloano Lake, a project hasrecently been initiated to develop the land on the eastside of the Pesoadero for which is intended the conoes-sion referred to at the start of this letter and to whichthis protest is directed.J As the first step in thisprojeot, a leve~ was oonstructed prior to the floodseason just passed, oommencing at San Luis in Sonorathenoe running west along the south side of the riverto a point opposite Pescadero Dam, narrowing in the riverat that point to less than 1000 feet in width, thenoeturning south diverging slightly to the east of parallelwith the Pesoadero Cut from the end of which, the leveeoiroled to the east around the silt cone to a oonneotionwith the reoently oonstructed Mexioali and Gulf R.R.This work was carried out under the temporary permitgranted the Colorado River Land Company November 22,1928 and, as stated in my letter of July 17th previouslymentioned, despite the tact that my Compania has s~entmillions of dollars on protective work and that the oon-struction of this levee would seriously affect our inter-ests, we are not granted the opportunity of presentingour views on the subjeot.

It has already been pointed out how the con-struotion of the Rodriquez Levee and development of lands

- ? -

in Volcano Lake affected the situation and now it isproposed to do the same thing except on a much bigger,scale, on the east side of the Pesoadero Basin. Butwhat is even more serious, is that portion of the newlevee from San Luis to and immediately below the Pes-cadero Dam on the south and east sides of the river.Heretofore, during floods the river has overflowedthis section, the amount of such overflow dependingupon the size of the flood. As a consequence, thisarea has functiened as what may be termed a "safetyvalve" as oan be shown by comparing the increase ingage heights in the vicinity of Pescadero Dam withthose at Andrade or Yuma for a corresponding increasein flood discharge. It is tr.ue that during the pastseveral years, there have been no floods of great mag-nitude and therefore the ma~imum effect of the overflowin reducing the height of water surface has not beenrecorded. Nevertheless, even with peak disoharges ofless than 100,000 second feet the benefit of the over-flowing or spreading out of the river has been veryapparent.

As a result of the construction of this newlevee, all the flow is forced do\VIlthe Pescadero Cut,or in other words, the flow is choked with a consequentraising of the water surface against the levee system,increasing the pressure and thereby increasing the dangerot breaks as well as making more frequent and greaterraising of the levees necessary. Furthermore, since thewater can no longer spread out, all of the silt is alsoforced down Pescadero and with a levee on both sides ofthe basin, will result in a much more rapid silting inof the small remaining area causing a more rapid raisingof the bed of the river, a greater distanoe to transportthe silt and higher gage heights along the ent1re leveesystem.

In order to make this situation olear, thereare three exhibits submitted herewith numbered 7269,6269N, and 6270N. The first, No. 7269, is a map showinggeneral oonditions after the break in the new levee onJune 2nd, of this year, the information shown being ob-tained by a survey made by the Compania. You will notethat the canal to the east of the new levee is shown in

- 8 -

varying widths. This was done to indicate the relativeamount of flow in various sections, as muoh as 25,000second feet being estimated as a maximum. The arrowsalong the .canal indicate points where the flow was intoor out of the canal. Your attention is directed to thechange in the river channel at Pescadero Dam which wascaused entirely by effect of the choking caused by thenew levee at that point and subsequent failure of thelatter.

Ever since the construction of the PescaderoDam, the flow of the river has been directly againstthat structure and as a result the Compania has forti-fied it with rock until it is the strongest part ofthe entire levee system. By reason of the change inthe river current, oaused by the new levee on the eastside, the flow no longer strikes against the dam butbelow that point and where heretofore the depth ofwater in front of the dam during flood season has beenfrom 40 to 60 feet deep, it is now only a few inchesdeep and the large expenditure of the Compa~ to pro-tect that point has been rendered usless.

The second exhibit , No. 62.69N, shows profilescomparing gage heights along our levee system with ariver disoharge of about 70,000 seQond feet for theyears 1927, 1928, and before and after the break ofJune 2nd, for 1929. A study of these profiles showsconClusively the effect of the new levee in raisingthe water level of the river. If the effect shown wasproduoed with a discharge of but 70,000 second feet,what would have been the result had the disoharge reached200,000 second feet as it has in the past.

This exhibit also shows the inorease in waterlevel each year at the end of our levee oaused by thesilting in of the Pescadero Basin as the silt cone isextended each year. This is to be expected but themore the delta is restricted by levees suoh as the Rod-~iquez and the one built this year, the greater will bethe yearly rise. However, you will note that the increasebetween the years 1927 and 1928 gradually decreases up-stream from the end of our levee until it entirely dis-appears about Mile 19. This being the normal condition

- 9 -

without a levee on the opposite side of the river.Now oompare the raise in water surface at the end ofour levee between 1928 and June 2nd, 1929 - beforethe new levee broke - as shovm by the space betweenthe red and blue lines, and you will note that insteador a decrease there was aotually an increase in theamount of the raise above Pesoadero Dam and insteadof disappearing at Mile 19, as ,for the previous year,it extends well above that point.

There oan be but one oause of this oonditionand that is the new levee on the south and east sidesof the river. This oan further be proven by oomparingoond1tions after the failure of the new levee as shownby the blaok line indioating the water level on June11th, 1929. You will note that this shows oonditionshave returned to about normal. The exoeptionally largedrop shown at Pesoadero Dam was undoubtedly oaused bythe shifting of the ourrent at that point following thefailure of the new levee opposite. Had the disohargebeen 150,000 second feet instead of 70,000, the ohokingeffect of the ,new levee would have been muoh greaterand would have required praotioally oomplete destruotionto relieve the situation instead of the few breaks whiohtook oare of the smaller discharge.

The Compania asks the question, why should itbe forced to oontend with suoh oonditions oaused byanother agenoy whioh is simply taking advantage of thework done by the Compania with no compensation to us,and which is undertak1ng a questionable projeot and in-creasing the flood danger to many hundreds of thousandsof heotares o~ land in crop in Mexioo and California.

The third exhibit. No. 5270N, presents graphswhioh also show the effeot of the new levee by a oompari-son of gage heights at three points on the Companialevees during the past flood season, with the d,isohargeof the river during the same period. It should be notedhOW, when the river is permitted to spread out as itdoes below the end of the Pesoadero Levee. there is arelatively small inorease in the gage height for a largeinorease in discharge; this is shown by the green line.Partioular attention is called to the drop in the water

- 10 -

//" "

J !

1.

level at K. 3006126 - shown by the red line - immediatelyfollowing the break of June 2nd., notwithstanding the.fact that the discharge increased materially, while atK. 23.3356, which was far enough upstream to not beaffected by the new levee with the low flood peak,there was a natural inorease in gage height with theinoreasing discharge. The 'siight drop at the end ofour levee, K. 50.2921, after the break was due to anaotual deorease in disoharge at that point resultingfrom the flow passing through the break to the east ofPesoadero Cut •. This is also shown on Exhibit No.2.I am sure the Department can appre01ate the conditionswhioh will result if the Baja California Canal Companyis permitted to rebuild its levee and a flood of 200,000or even 150,000 seoond feet is had.

I have gone into this situation at some lengthbeoause I w1shed to present the entire picture for theoonsideration of the Department. At best, the floodproblem on the lower Colorado is a most serious one andmy Compania has spent millions of dollars in protectivework so that our interest is a large one whioh we believeis entitled to the fullest conSideration. .

In asking that the 90noe8sion requested bythe Colorado River Land Oompany be not granted, we aredoing no one an injury a~' this land has never beenfarmed and it i~ only through the expenditures of myCompania that the development 1s at all possible. Thegrant1ng of the oonoession would mean the oonstruct~onof a long levee for the development of an area which iscertain to take years to acoomp11sh but during that time,the levee would create an ever increasing menace to thehundreds of thousands of hectares now in crop represent-ing millions of dollars in investments.

There is no assured water supply for this newarea as the low flow of the river has been completelyutilized for many years. So in view of these oonditions,we ask, why perm1t this questionable undertaking at the~aorifice of the interests of those who have invested somuoh in the creat1ng of the project already developed andwho depend upon our levee system for proteotion. We feelthat at least, the development of the new lands shouldawait the permanent oontrol of the river.

- 11 -