Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'.~...i <br />::;-~ <br /> <br />(,~r ' <br />()I_"j.~ . <br /> <br />~- ::l; <br />1 <br /> <br />1996 Report to the Rio Grande compact Commission <br /> <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br /> <br />.. ~1 <br />..1 <br />~, J <br /> <br />personnel with equipment maintenance, Approximately 4 miles of canal berm roadway <br />was resurfaced in 1996. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District continued its <br />involvement in the ground water monitoring program and continues maintenance of the <br />irrigation systems for the shelter belt areas. <br /> <br />San Luis Lake <br /> <br />~! <br /> <br />The project continued flow-through operations at San Luis Lake during 1996 with <br />2,967 af delivered to the lake through San Luis Lake Feeder Canal. Natural flows into <br />the lake were estimated to be 368 afas measured at the San Luis Lake Parshall Flume <br />and estimated at the spillway and culverts. During the year, 3,370 af was pumped <br />from the lake, <br /> <br />" -~ <br /> <br />Water Deliveries <br /> <br />( , <br /> <br />A total of 28,340 af of project water was delivered to various points, of which <br />22,830 af was creditable deliveries to the Rio Grande pursuant to the Rio Grande <br />Compact. Creditable deliveries for 1996 were 12,650 af higher than 1995, Closed <br />Basin water deliveries in 1 996 included deliveries to the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area, <br />Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge, San Luis Lake, and the Rio Grande. Table 1 <br />summarizes 1996 operations of the project. <br /> <br />Stockman's Water Company Development Proposal <br /> <br />Stockman's Water Company is exploring the possibility of constructing a well field and <br />pipeline system to export San Luis Valley water for sale to Colorado Front Range <br />communities. The proposed development is adjacent to and may impact Closed Basin <br />Division facilities and operations. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />The Company's proposal, as presented by the developers, is similar to American Water <br />Development Incorporated's past proposal. The primary difference is that Stockman's <br />Water Company has acknowledged the "tributary" nature of the water they propose <br />to export and have presented a plan for augmentation that is intended to compensate <br />any damage to the water rights of others. The American Water Development <br />Incorporated plan did not address the tributary nature of ground water and was <br />objected to by numerous local, private, and governmental entities. The plan was <br />denied permission to proceed in a lawsuit tried in the water court. <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />Stockman's Water Company has said that they would provide 25,000 af of water to <br />the Closed Basin Division at no cost to the Government as part of their augmentation <br /> <br />7 <br />