My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09097
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09097
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:51:12 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:27:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8510.100.40
Description
Rio Grande Compact Commission
Basin
Rio Grande
Water Division
3
Date
1/1/1979
Title
San Luis Valley Water Problems: A Legal Perspective - Part I of II
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />11 <br /> <br />t'- <br />"'t' <br />~ <br />).-.j servoirs constructed after 1929, to retain sufficient water to satisfy its <br />/C) <br />~J accrued debits. <br /> <br />A ceiling is set for New Mexico and for Colorado as to any excess <br />deliveries in any year. Article VI prevents either Colorado or New Mexico <br /> <br />from acquiring an accrued credit in excess of 150,000 acre feet, and even <br /> <br />this accrued credit can be lost by each state, either wholly or in part, <br /> <br />if the reservoir capacity of the project is so full that some of the water <br /> <br />must be released and cannot be held by a prOject reservoir further down- <br /> <br />stream. Thus, neither state is permitted to accumulate large amounts of <br /> <br />credit whi ch can be drawn Upon duri ng subsequent years. It forces each <br />state to utilize, as best it can, any excess water that might be present <br />. in the stream system for any given year. It also apparently stabilizes <br /> <br />the amount of water which New Mexico and Texas can expect to receive in <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />any given year, since it would be impossible for.a state to amass huge <br />water delivery credits and then effectively draw upon those credits to <br />meet future delivery requirements under the Compact. <br /> <br />An alternative rationale for limiting the amount of accrued credit has <br /> <br />also been proposed. Limiting the amount of accrued credits would prevent <br /> <br />unsound expansion of water development projects which otherwise might <br />result from the accumulation of large annual credits.12 Alternatively, <br /> <br />by permitting flexibility in the amount of accrued debits, Colorado could <br />continue to irrigate at the 1938 levels without undue hardship or curtail- <br />ment.13 <br /> <br />12Hinderlider, supra., at page 24. <br /> <br />13Ibid. <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.