Laserfiche WebLink
<br />26 <br /> <br />N <br />c.o <br />-::l" <br />",4 <br />c.,:, <br />r.,::l <br /> <br />The significance of this Act in the San Luis Valley is perhaps greater <br /> <br /> <br />than in any other basin in Colorado. Prior to 1973, administration of <br /> <br />water rights in the Valley had been accomplished as though there were two <br />separate rivers, the Rio Grande and the Conejos. The rationale was partly <br />that Conejos water rights holders have the earliest water rights in the <br />Valley, whereas the Rio Grande rights holders acquired rights later in <br /> <br />time; and perhaps more, be~ause they are two separate rivers, not hydro- <br /> <br />logically connected except at points near their convergence, and the <br /> <br />division engineer felt it logical to administer them as two rivers. <br /> <br />To implement the basin rank concept outlined in section 37-92-401, <br />CRS 1973 would have truly caused a substantial change in the priority of <br /> <br />many water users on the Rio Grande system. But section 37-92-104 (1)(b)(VI), <br /> <br />CRS 1973 enabled the division engineer to designate the priority according <br />to the historic practice where to do otherwise would cause a substantial <br /> <br />change. The problem is still not resolved however. The call below the <br /> <br />confluence of the two river systems imposed by the Rio Grande Compact, and <br />section 37-92-401, CRS, has resulted in a controversy as to the proper <br />administration of water in Division Number 3:29a <br /> <br />With respect to the Rio Grande Compact, by 1965 an alleged indebtedness <br />of 900,000 acre feet to the two downstream states was asserted by Texas and <br /> <br />New Mexico. Presumably this was brought about through failure to closely <br />manage the Colorado diversions from the Rio Grande in the early 1960s. In <br />1965, Texas and New Mexico brought suit against Colorado, charging Colorado <br />with a violation of Article III of the Compact. The suit came as a sur- <br />prise to the Valley residents since up to that time no one in Colorado had <br />attempted to comply with the Compact, and Coloradoans didn't feel the <br /> <br />29aLetter and Comments to Report, Division Engineer, Water Division <br />Number 3, dated November 15, 1977. <br />