Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, ,.Mr. R i,cli a I'd L. I: rO\'iJJ <br /> <br />-;~- <br /> <br />February 1'/, 1976 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />029:1 <br /> <br />Two of these factors, a and c, are based upon certain erroneous <br />asslllllplions whi(;h indicate l'ilJlitrd kno"led0e of Colorado \~oLer 10\'1 <br />and dil'ectly affect the alllount of project water ,lVaililhle. <br /> <br />In determining project \'Iater releases, the onnual reservoir <br />evaporation 10sses I]lUSt be estimated so that this loss can be sub- <br />tracted from the amount stored alon9 with other losses to determine <br />annual releases, The estinlate of reservoir evaporotion loss by the <br />Bureau takes credi t for pl'e- proj ect cons UlJlpt i ve uses re 1 a ted to <br />irrigation consumptive use under the I'/eldon Valley Canal. 'This can <br />be done only if the water right is not utilized in the future; however, <br />the Bureau does not intend to do this but does intend to use this <br />water right as part of the project \'later supply. Thus, the annual <br />evaporation loss appeJI'S to be under estilllated and, as a result, the <br />project water releases over estimated. If the Narrows is constructed, <br />the reservoir ,!ill be subject to evaporation losses as determined by <br />this office. <br /> <br />Throughout the history of the ~IJrrO\~s, the Bureau has assumed <br />that when it acquil'ed the land irrigated by the Heldon Valley Canal <br />wate~ right, it would also acquire the water right. This is not <br />true since aViateI' rigllt can be separated from the land on \'Ihich it <br />is used and transferred to other lands. It is very possible that the <br />various 01'1I1e"s of the IJeldon Valley Canal may elect to sell it to <br />other \'later users outside the project boundaries or to transfer it to <br />lands they may o\'ln under other canals. <br /> <br />From the above, it \'lOu1d appear that the Bureau has possibly over <br />estimated the pl'oject \~ater supply and, thus, incorrectly evaluated <br />the impact of the project. <br /> <br />On pages 11-17 and 11-18, the project water supply is discussed <br />further using the same value:. discus:.ed above for the same study <br />period (1947--1961). It \~ould appear that the Bureau should update <br />the reservoir operation study through 1975 which would allow consid- <br />eration of the numerous changes in Colorado \'later law since 1961 and <br />the changes in \'Iater use that have occurred since 1961. As an <br />example, the number of irrigation \'Iells increased significant1y in <br />the South Platte River system during the period of 1961 to 1965. <br /> <br />On page 11-37, it Is stated that the salable project water supply <br />is estimdted to be 119,000 acre feet per year, which includes the <br />31,000 aCt'e feet attribul:able to the l'/eldon Valley Cunal. ^gilin, th'is <br />could be an erroneous ,,:;suil',plioTl ilS c1iscllssed u!.Jove \'Ih'ich could <br />signi fic<lnlly affecl tile ecollollllc justi ficution of the Narro\'IS Project. <br /> <br />[t is stated (page ]1-41) thilt it IllinilllulIl nOl'1 of 50 cfs \~ill !.Je <br />maintained illl',nediately dO'.'II1:.Lreul!1 of the fish hatchery. The reuson <br />for this minimum flO\~ is lIot provided. The reservoir operiltion study <br />did not include this cl'iteria and, if nO\~ inlposed, could affect the <br />amount of project ~Iater available for irrigation. <br />