Page 84

Metadata

Title
Page 84
Source
Colorado River problem
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
DAVIS ON THE COLORADO RIVER PROBLEM 389 If the decision is that additional storage may be needed some day, the dam at Diamond Creek can be built, and the space between this and Boulder Reservoir can be left open for still further consideration, that is, whether to build Boulder Dam higher, or to build a dam 128 ft. high at Bridge Canyon. In any event, the construction of the dam at Devils Slide, as proposed, would be a serious economic blunder, as it would destroy the best reservoir site in the Basin, and seriously limit the usefulness of the river. The plan proposed herein would utilize every foot of head between Parker and the National Park, except 38 ft. in the Mohave Valley, which would thus be reserved for agriculture, complying with the fourth maxim mentioned previously, as to the preference given to agriculture over power. It complies with the first maxim, leaving several alternatives open for decision in the light of future information. It likewise complies with the other maxims. Contrasted with this, is the plan to issue corporate licenses for Diamond Creek, Devils Slide, and Boulder Canyon, and build a Govern-ment dam at Mohave Canyon, as proposed by the author, and shown on Fig. 21 (b) for comparison. The two plans would have the results given in Table 28. TABLE 28.—Comparison of Plans. Site. Head, in feet Surface area, in acres. Capacity, in acre-feet. Davis' Plan. Williams ....... 100 150 570 90,000 20,000 138,000 2,900,000 1,600,000 28,500,000 Bulls Head............. Boulder.............. Bridge Canyon.......... 570 16,000 3,000,000 Total.......... 1,390 264,000 36,000,000 Author's Plan. Mohave ...... 180 387 298 445 130,000 69,000 4,000 13,000 13,000,000 10,000,000 400,000 1,900,000 Boulder................. Devils Slide............. Diamond.............. Total ......... 1,310 216,000 25,300,000 It will be noted that the plan here proposed develops 80 ft. more head, and uses this head far more efficiently than the author's plan because its regu-lation is both greater and higher up the stream. Its power output would be greater by several hundred thousand horse-power. The evaporation surface by the latter plan would be greater by about 22%, but owing to differing conditions already enumerated, the evaporation would be only slightly greater and the storage afforded would be 10 700 000 acre-ft. greater, and would endure more than 100 years longer. It does not submerge Mohave Valley, as proposed in the author's plan. In every respect, therefore, it is better.

Cite this Item

When linking to this object, please use the following URL:

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,1691

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

There are no comments yet. Be the first to comment below!

Comment on this object