WSP11269 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.... II!tI . . . . . .. . ,t ," r< t. ~I ,) 'c 3. Acreage Shift Article IV B.1. of the Operating Principles provides that the "19,717 acres of the District's irrigable area shall be composed as nearly as practicable" to specified areas under the individual ditches. The areas specified are the same as the tabulation that appears in the Bureau's Irrigation Report on the Trinidad Project, July 1964. The 1985 survey of irri9able lands revealed a shift in the location of the irrigated lands. The following tabluation shows the original irrigable acreage distribution, the acreage distribution from the 1985 survey, and the differences: Ditch 1964 Report 1985 Survey Diff . Baca Joint 2,428 Chi le 114 South Side 6,359 Victor Florez 22 El Moro 160 Model 6,177 Johns Flood 1,854 Hoehne 1,742 Burns & Duncan 322 Lewelling-McCormick 378 Salas 161 19;7i7 2,516 1/ 112- 5,566 o 156 7,079 ,1,722 1,618 174 389 53 19,385 88 -2 -793 -22 -4 902 -132 -124 -148 11 -108 -332 1/ Includes Baca Ditch Picketwire-Chicosa L uj an Northside E 1 Moro 324 632 908 266 385 2,516 This tabulation shows the major shift of acreage is from the South Side System to the Model lands. By increasing the acreage under the Model and decreasing that of the South Side, the project water transferred would be used on an area several miles farther from the river and return flow from this transferred water would occur well below the area of reuse of return flow within the project. Thus, less Project return flow would be available for Project demand, more return flow to Purgatoire River would flow out of the project area, and more reservoir release would be required for irrigating the same amount of acreage. However, a portion of the additional return flow would be offset by the addi- tional transportation losses caused by the length of the Model Canal. A review of the irrigation reports suggests that the purpose for specifying the number of acres to be irrigated under each ditch was to satisfy the irrigators within the project area that the distribution of project benefits would be fair. There is no indication that the protection of downstream water rights was a consideration in the distribution of project lands to be served. The limit on the total irrigated acreage of 19,717 was the primary protection for downstream users. As in the case of the irrigation of 6W lands, we find no evidence that the shift of location of irrigated land within the project has any harmful impacts on the downstream water rights. 41