Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Review of Trinidad projec!erations <br /> <br />.1996 Draft Report; <br /> <br />Summ' of Comments to USSR's Aug <br /> <br />10 Year <br /> <br />USSR Conclusion I USSR Recommendation I COLORADO I PRWCD I KANSAS <br /> <br />-------------------- i--------------------------__. 1--------------- -----------i---------- 1-__________ <br />A. R~lIover is a departure, b~t no effect o~ ~peration~ when I Do not change OP to allow rollover I no comment I no comment I Agree <br />practlcecttrl!caUSe Model lands not then Irrigated. . .. I I I I <br />------------------------------------------,---------------------------. -r-------------- -----------,---------. --------r---------- <br />B. Storage of winter water under direct flow rights may be a I "Storage of winter water under the district (sic, should be I no comment I no comment I Such storage would be departure from intent ofl <br />departure from pre-Project planning model, but "not I direct?) flow rights in any of the irrigation capacity is allowed I I I OP, citing USSR 1988 report. Need reliable <br />necessarily a departure from the OP." I by the OP and they should be amended to clarify that this is I I I demonstration of no downstream injury before <br />I allowed. l I I amendment. <br />------------------------------------------~-~-----------------------------------------~-------------- -----------~--------_. --------~----------------------------------- <br />C. Allocation of excess space to fishery and filling and I Incorporate "temporary amendment" into OP and modify to 11/26/96 amendment is not viewed as I does not effect District' Delete as outside study period, premature to <br />maintaining this pool "will not interfere with District water I provide "volume for volume exchange at the mouth of the I temporary, it is still acceptable to I therefore no further I discuss further until operational history under the]' <br />supply nor will it increase depletions to downstream ..I Purgatoire considering conveyance losses" on all reaches. I Colorado as adopted. I comment, other than to note I new amendment and adequate analysis of <br />users." 1 for 1 exchange benefits users below JMR, should I Change point of reference to inflow to JMR. I I the amendment does not I Purgatoire R. losses. <br />modify to account for differences in losses. I I I indicate that it is temporary. I <br />------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------~----------------------------~---------------------~----------------------------------- <br />D. Stockwater releases did not result in storage in excess of I Reduce stockwater allowance to 1200af measured at I Do not reduce allowance to 1200af I Object to reduction in I Removing 5 cfs limit is "premature", need <br />20,OOOaf under Model Storage right in 1992. Stock release' Trinidad gage. Allow rate of reservoir release up to rate of 'unless impact of Hoehne curtailment' volumetric limitation. Clarify I adequate analysis of effect on downstream users. <br />never exceeded 1500 af, but stock water allowance including I inflow without counting as stored water. Stock volumetric I better explained. Clarify release on I that stockwater not counted I <br />gains did exceed in 1984 and 1992. Allowance for Hoehne I allowance includes both releases and river gains measured I volumetric basis better to say total of I against storage limits I <br />ended. I at Trinidad gage. I bypasses may not exceed 1500 af/yr I I <br />------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------~----------------------------~---------------------~--------------------------------~-- <br />E. Total acres irrigated did not exceed 19,717. USSR 19851 Reduce total irrigable acreage to 19,499; delete land I No more than 19,499 acres irrigated in I Clarify that acreage limit I Revise conclusion to show that acreage in years <br />survey shows 19,383 acres, PRWCD 1994 survey shows I classification requirements; identify and designate irrigable I anyone year, but district irrigated' applies to different lands 1 other than 1985 and 1994 is unreported. <br />19,395 acres being irrigated including other than Class 1,2 'lands by ditch; develop procedure to verify no more than I acreage under allocation contract may I from year to year, so long as I <br />& 3. "Total allowable irrigated acreage" should be reduced to I total is receiving an allocation or actually irrigated. I be higher so long as sufficient acres I total actually irrigated is I <br />offset water rights not acquired by PRWCD. I I fallowed each year. l below limit. I <br />------------------------------------------~-------------------------------------------~----------------------------~---------------------~----------------------------------- <br />F. Operations have not resulted in increase in depletions in I Determine real time irrigation requirement I District must do if required until OP I Current procedures are I Analysis of pre and post-project depletions at <br />Project area and no effect on downstream users. I , amended to no longer require. I sufficient, disagree with' Thatcher gage is inconsistent with Model decree <br />I I I USSR's recommendation I and Kansas' preferred study method. Mass <br />I I, I d' . d < h' <br />I I I , lag rams are Ina equate lor s oWing new <br />I I: I depletions from project, need to analyze stateline <br />I : I I effects <br />------------------------------------------~-------------------------------------------~----------------------------~---------------------~----------------------------------- <br />G. PRWCD has not attained optimal beneficial use of water I Determine transit losses for each ditch to allocate water and I District must do if required until OP I Current procedures are I no comment <br />supply by not determining individual ditch losses and limiting , administer deliveries in accordance with allocations. , amended to no longer require. , sufficient, disagree with I <br />ditch diversions to allocations based on real time irrigation I I I USSR's recommendation I <br />requirement I I I I <br />------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------~----------------------------}---------------------~----------------------------------- <br />H. City of Trinidad may change project wat~r right~ .to M&I I Amend OP to allow City to use project water rights for M&I I no comment I no comment I Agree that change should be considered, still <br />uses pursuant to Colorado water law Without injury to I purposes. I , , need "appropriate analysis. showing no <br />d t I I I d . . <br />owns ream users. I I I I ownstream inJury. <br />------------------------------------------,-------------------------------------------r----------------------------,---------------------r----------------------_____________ <br />I. Conditions (d) and (e) for reregulation of summer flow I Amend OP to allow implement conditions (d) and (e) with a I OK to add clarification, but we believe I Agree, but water court I Premature, conditions (d) and (e) vague, need <br />could be implemented through substitute supply plans that I water court approved substitute supply plan. I District can already do this. Delete I approval is not required for I specific proposals from District and adequate <br />prevent depletion to JMR inflows., Ilanguage re water court approval I sub. supply plan I analysis by USSR or otherwise. <br />I I merely need to comply with Colorado I I <br />I I law. I l <br /> <br />C:\SRMJllER\ARKANSAS\TRINIOA0\1OYRSUM'.TAB <br /> <br />,... <br /> <br />No'ternber15, <br />