WSP10896 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000415 -26- . reservoirs in the P~edra River liasin to provide for regulation of deliver- ies through the tpnnel and for replacement storage; the San Juan-South Fork diversion (53,000 acre feet, not ment~oned in the Report); and the Animas~ Rio Grande diversion (130,000 ncrefeet), which is listed (page 120) among the alternative projects, and excluded frcm the sUlIlllaries with the state~ ment that "there is insufficient \~ter for this project and also for the full Animas-La Plata project as outlined, or for "the Animas River power development." With respect to the conflict between plans for diverting Animas Ri. ver surplus water for irrigation use eithlr in' the San Luis Valley or the La Plata River Valley, Colorado says that decision cannot be made by the local interests, the State of Colorado, or the Bureau of Reclame.- tion,prior to the completion of individual investigations and reports on the feasibility and economic justification of both projects. The Report is not clear as to the period upon which the exportations above mentioned are calculated, whether the droul;h cycle of 1931-1940, or long-time aver~ ages. From the description on the se,me page of the San Juan-Chama diver- sion for New Mexico it appears that droul;h-cycle averages are given. >lith respect to that project, the statement is made tha.tl "In exchange for the mter thus brought into New Mexico, a like amount would be diverted from the river and its tributaries in Colorado and used for irrigation in the San Luis Valley." ColoradO suggests that in lieu of said statement, the Report should indicate that "an agreement will be required between Colo- rado, New Nexico and Texas, involving possible revisions of the Rio Grande Compact, in order to determine the benefits to accrue to the San Luis Valley in Colorado by reason of the diversion of water from the San Juan River and its tributaries in Colorado for use in the Rio Grande basin in New Hexico." . , r, 46. The desoription (at page 94) of the Blue River~South Platte di- version is not adequate or accurate. It should indicate a potential yield estimnted at 701,000 acre feet, for the combined yield of the projects proposed by the City of Denver and the Bureau of Rec lamation, and that the project is e.n enlargement and extension of the Blue River portion of the trans~ountBin diversion systems heretofore initiated by the City and CoUUoy of Denver. The said Denver system may be described in three partsl (1) the Moffat and Jones Pass tunnels whioh are constructed, and through which diversions averaging 51.400 e.ore feet are now being made; (2) the storage reservoir on Williams River. now constructed and the collection systems on Fraser and Hilliams which are partially construoted and are being extended as needed, which will have the effect of increa.sing the diversions from said streams and for whioh increase an allowance of 100,000 aore feet is made in the Report; and (3) potential diversions frcm the Blue River. The ultimate use by the City of Denver of water that may be exported from the Fraser, >lilliams and Blue Ri vers is estimated at 350,000 acre feet annually. The Blue River-South Platte projeot proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation contempla.tes diversions from the Eagle, Piney, Blue and Hillie.ms Rivers and their tributaries. Its potential diversions, in addition to the all.owance of 100,000 acre feet for Denver's near-future expansion, will aver age 550,000 acre feet annually. SUoh additionil.l des- cription of the BlulJ River-South platte project as may be embodied in the Report should be obtaine d from the re gi onal director at Denver, which of- fice is conducting the investigations and preparing the report on the project. .'