|
<br />C:>
<br />
<br />Charles Mesa Water Users Association,
<br />in a five year Cooperative Study with
<br />the Pueblo Office of the U.s.
<br />Geological Survey, to condUd a \'\ater
<br />Quality Study at Pueblo Reservoir.
<br />Waters flowing into Pueblo ReseM>ir
<br />originate on many tributaries between
<br />the Continental Divide and Pueblo
<br />Dam, and incorporates Project waters
<br />which are stored for later use by cities
<br />and irrigators downstream from
<br />Pueblo. Water Quality, therefore, pl~
<br />a very important p,art in the O\.erall
<br />operation of this important storage
<br />facility, and the expertise of the USGS
<br />was sought to identify the various
<br />charadefishes of the reservoir for lang-
<br />range planning.
<br />
<br />'-,
<br />
<br />....
<br />~
<br />.::0-
<br />Q
<br />
<br />In 1987, Pal Edelmann of the Subdis-
<br />trid Office of the USGS in Pueblo,
<br />was in charge of f'll.lensive Water
<br />Quality Studies at Pueblo Reservoir,
<br />which required the utilization of
<br />sophislicated boats and equipment
<br />from other USGS Offices. The Studies
<br />not only included Water Quality, but
<br />also Sediment Characteristics. The
<br />study team developed interesting
<br />information from field studies, as
<br />regarding the exact characteristics of
<br />the Reservoir, and meetings conlinue
<br />between the USGS and the sponsoring
<br />agencies.
<br />
<br />In 1990 th{> District joined "'ith a
<br />number of Cities and other agencies in
<br />the Arkansas Valley to commence a
<br />cooperatiV(' study with Ihe U.s.
<br />Geological Survey on a basinwide
<br />water QUdlity study. Rf'presentali\.1:'s
<br />from the participating entities were
<br />formed into a task force, and held
<br />regular meetings to r€'\liew preliminary
<br />plans for the five }1:'ar study and
<br />analyze results of field studies. II is
<br />anticipated periodic reportS will be
<br />extremely IJeneficial in working with
<br />the Colorado Water Quality Control
<br />Commission, and iederal agencies
<br />relative to standards required under
<br />the Clean \-Valer Act.
<br />
<br />ANNUAL BUDCO
<br />
<br />Colorado State Statutes require that
<br />entities, such as the District, prepare a
<br />detailed Budget each ~ar, sening forth
<br />estimated income, and identity
<br />anticipated expenditures in specific
<br />categories.
<br />
<br />A preliminary Budget is prep.lred in
<br />early August. and rt"..:iewed by the
<br />
<br />Board at the September meeting. with
<br />a coI1y sent to the Division of local
<br />Govemment for preliminary approval
<br />of the mill I€'\IY. Current Statutes place
<br />a ceiling on the amount of increase
<br />which can be approved.
<br />
<br />States Supreme Court by the State of
<br />Kansas against the State of Colorado.
<br />In January 1990 representatives from
<br />the office of the Attorney General for
<br />the State of Colorado advised the
<br />District, changes had been made in
<br />the pre-trial engineering studies, and
<br />the Board authorized Wright Water
<br />Engineers to complete extensive
<br />engineering sludies to be used as a
<br />part of that case. Artorn~ for the
<br />District were also asked 10 devote
<br />more time than anticipated in meet-
<br />ings to assure that the interests of the
<br />District. particularly Winter Storage,
<br />were accounted for. As a result of
<br />these circumstances, the Boord of
<br />Directors amended the 1990 Budget at
<br />a regular meeting on December 20,
<br />1990 to increase the Legal Fund by
<br />$]5,0??.oo, and Ihe Engineering Fund
<br />by $117,000.00. Funds for the additional
<br />amounts were made available by
<br />transferring irom eltcess receipts over
<br />eltpenditures. .
<br />
<br />The Board of Directors held a formal
<br />Public Hearing on the Proposed
<br />Budget on October 18, 1990,
<br />unanimously approved the Budget,
<br />and transmitted copies to officials in
<br />each county, and to the Division of
<br />local GO'\'f!"rnments. Due to rh{>
<br />decline in the assessed valuations in
<br />many of the rural counties in the
<br />District. it was necessary for the Board
<br />to apprO'\'f!" an increase in the mill levy
<br />from 0.716 to 0.0807 in the 1991
<br />Budget.
<br />
<br />In December it became apparent the
<br />amount budgeted for Legal and
<br />Engineering would be inadequate due
<br />to the lawsuit fifed in the United
<br />
<br /> PAID TO U.S. BUREAU Of RECLAMATION
<br /> Ad V.al""umT.....,.
<br /> ,,'"
<br />fu' 'Hn.V.I.AuIh. I'I'l>i<<1W..'~ Winl.... Wilt.,
<br />"'" 5.000 A_f. . 5 N.OOO
<br />1972 5 I.S.863 20.000 Af. , %.000
<br />1':173 , 157,918 11.000 A,F_ , S2.800
<br />197. , 183.107 18.000 " 89.280
<br />1975 10S.607 15.000 H , 110,000
<br />1976 , 2l1,8b-4 10.000 A.F. Sl.1lO8
<br />1977 2-46,SlI
<br />1978 , 2&0.706 25.000 " 5 13..093
<br />1979 5 lH,627 25.000 A,f_ , lH_5'.
<br />"'" , 19':l.2S3 70.000 A.' 5379.712
<br />,.., 5 317.736 25,000 ^' , llU)91
<br />1982 51.461.565 ".000 ^' 5 54-4.000 4td97 " 5 148.-4"
<br />1983 51.S2S.0S0 19.133 Af. , lS]J'04 77.878 A_F, , 249,210
<br />198-4 51,S45.296 l':l.119 ^' S 233.910 84.&46 ^' 5170.868
<br />1985' 51.978.848 24,285 ^' 5194.276 46.163 A,F. , 147.722
<br />1986' 5 2.359427 H,b4S H 5 189.104 28.779 H 5 92.093
<br />1987' , 2.68-4,1>68 12.122 "'_f. 5 %.976 2S.1'9 A' , ao.57J
<br />1988' 52.814,223 79,-494 AF 56JS.9S2 38.0SO ^' 5 121,760
<br />198<1' , 3.060.032 108,73S AF -58M,880 -40.9'91 A_F, , 1l1,170
<br />,"". 5 3.110.832 45,882AF -5398.63. 42.27] " , 135.173
<br />
<br />9
<br />
|