Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br /> <br />'.1 <br /> <br />! <br /> <br />CiJ <br />'n <br />"",'j <br />.-1 <br />, :) <br />..~:> <br /> <br />SO that the water developed would meet the quality standards specified in the Com- <br />pact. As explained previously many farmers, and also domestic users, depend <br />largely on an adequate ground water supply which could easily be jeopardized by <br />extensive 'use in conjunction with the drainage projects. <br /> <br />It is recognized that the amount of water lost annually to evapotranspiration <br />in the potential drainage area varies from year to year. The Rock Creek report <br />estimates that approximately 0.75 acre feet of water per acre is lost annually by <br />evaporation and plant consumption. The estimate is supported by the 1964 <br />Reconnaissance Report publiahed by the Bureau of Reclamation. It is this water <br />which is lost through nonbeneficial usC's that should be the prime target of <br />drainage projects. <br /> <br />The installation of wells increases initial cost as well as operation and <br />maintenance costs. <br /> <br />It is felt that much more information is needed before the proper decisions <br />can be made relative to the merits of the use of wells in conjunction with <br />drainage projects. A few questions are included for consideration. Is <br />enough known about the ground water that future development and use will not <br />be jeopardized by the wells? \\fhen the Rio Grande Compact was drawn up, supposedly <br />enough was known about the surface water that present and future uses were being <br />protected. ffistory has proven that this was not the case. Could the same effect <br />result in the case of ground water? Are wells 'a must to provide quality and <br />quantity of water to satisfy the Compact? \\fill adequate drainage remo~e salts <br />from drainage areas and result in reduction of salt concentrations over a period <br />of time? Can open or closed drains provide sufficient lowering ,of the water <br />table to eliminate or reduce evapotranspiration losses and also provide adequate <br />means for control and administration? Must more water be salvaged than is being <br />lost through nonbeneficial use? <br /> <br />The preliminary conclusions as a result of this study to this time would in- <br />dicate that properl, constructed drains would provide sufficient lowering of the <br />water table to salvage substantial q'uantities of water. <br /> <br />\illile we are unable to accurately predict, at this point, the quality of the <br />water initially salvaged from any particular project, we feel at least on a <br />preliminary basis, that any concentration of salt would be reduced as the drains <br />are utilized so that over a period of time the quality of water developed would <br />be improved. <br /> <br />If further study and experience prove these preliminary conclusions to be correct <br />then it would seem to be unnecessary to expose the water users of the San Luis <br />Valley to the risk that salvage by the use of wells would adversely affect their <br />groWld water supply. <br /> <br />It is recommended that appropriate gaging stations be established in conjWlc- <br />tion with all drainage and channelization projects in order to facilitate <br />operation, evaluation and administration of such projects. In addition, it is <br />anticipated that any project proposed and implemented will meet with some <br />opposition from those who feel that they are being damaged. Therefore, <br /> <br />~ <br />