My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09398
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09398
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:53:21 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:36:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8507
Description
Rio Grande Project
State
CO
Basin
Rio Grande
Date
7/1/1997
Title
Water Management Study: Upper Rio Grande Basin part 3
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.
/
63
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 />~ " Ii <br /> <br /> <br />An Overview of the Basin's Resource-Management Problems <br /> <br />-".., <br /> <br />pulse13 were able to get the release spread out over about three months. At <br />the same time, water users below the dam accelerated their withdrawals <br />from Elephant Butte Reservoir to dilute the salinity from agricultural runoff, <br />but with the effect of reducing the probability that a spill would occur. In the <br />end, the three states did not agree that a "spill" occurred. The net result, <br />however, was that, because ofthe institutional and legal system for <br />managing the river and the parties' attempts to manipulate the system to <br />their respective advantage, abnormally large amounts of water flowed <br />through the system just as it became apparent that runoff in the Basin in <br />1996 would be at near-record drought levels. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />::.. <br /> <br />~~ <br />{...... <br /> <br />Subsequent events reveal even more about how some of the laws, rules, and <br />institutions governing the management of the Basin's water and related <br />resources are based on yesterday's models of the ecosystem and the economy, <br />and disregard the realities of the competition for these resources. Ai3 the <br />severity of the potential drought became more apparent early in 1996, <br />MRGCD accelerated its calls for water to be released from Cochiti and <br />diverted even more water than usual from the river (Miller 1996). In the <br />Socorro Reach, for example, MRGCD's withdrawals from the river in March <br />were about 230 cubic feet per second (cfs), compared with 160 cfs, the <br />district's approximate average for the preceding decade. Thus, with runoff at <br />one of the lowest levels on record and in the face of severe drought, the <br />district's response was not to conserve water, but to use it even more <br />intensely. MRGCD's diversion of all water from the river and the <br />subsequent death of about 40 percent of the population of Rio Grande silvery <br />minnows eventually prompted preliminary legal action seeking to prevent <br />further occurrences. <br /> <br />~~; <br /> <br />~~: <br /> <br />.;: <br /> <br />:~ <br /> <br />Other parties responded differently. Recognizing that the drought posed <br />especially severe consequences for the Rio Grande silvery minnow and other <br />environmental resources, the BuRec, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, CoE, City <br />of Albuquerque, and others, including MRGCD, worked to locate water that <br />could be spared elsewhere and dedicated their efforts to ensuring that it <br />remained instream. In other words and from an economics perspective, they <br /> <br />.. <br />':., <br /> <br />is The natural hydrograph peaks in the spring and early summer. Hence, the proposed <br />pulse in the winter could have dramatically affected species, such as the endangered Rio <br />Grande silvery minnow, whose life cycles are tied to the normal hydrograph (Jeft'Whitney, <br />U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, personal communication). <br /> <br />i";,,2984 <br /> <br />103 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.