Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r:'" <br />t. <br /> <br />(~" <br />,;",I <br />'':;!It <br />e\J <br /> <br />~.-) <br /> <br />;.~~ <br /> <br />.., <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />each year, 6000 acre-feet were sold on a special one-year water <br /> <br />service contract to the water users. Again in 1986, 1987 and 1988 <br /> <br />small amounts of water were sold to water users on water service <br /> <br />agreements. 1987 and 1988 in particular demonstrated the potential <br />of the reservoir, with several participating water users reporting <br /> <br />that they had obtained a second crop of alfalfa for the first time. <br /> <br />The history of water use in the Conejos region has been a <br /> <br />frustrating one. Sometime after the negotiation and signature of <br /> <br />the 1938 compact, distrust and suspicion began to grow between the <br /> <br />users of the Conejos and water users of the mainstem of the Rio <br /> <br />Grande in Colorado. The compact had provided for separate delivery <br /> <br />schedules for the conejos and the Rio Grande, and questions about <br /> <br />how they would be administered emerged. <br /> <br />The questions simmered <br /> <br />through the '50's and '60'S, but the controversy erupted in full <br /> <br />in 1968, when Texas and New Mexico sued Colorado over the <br /> <br />accumulated compact debt which at that point had reached <br />900,000 acre-feet. Colorado stipulated to forego the further use <br />of debt and to administer so as to force a delivery exactly equal <br /> <br />to the schedule each year. <br /> <br />The resulting litigation over administrative rules and <br /> <br />regulations governing compact compliance and governing well pumping <br /> <br />in the San Luis Valley was long, bitter and expensive. Ten weeks <br /> <br />of trial during 1979, all the preparation during the prior decade <br /> <br />and the ensuing appeals left the Conejos District with massive <br /> <br />4 <br />