RGBRT Minutes of 9-12-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mel Getz — Storage Options - Upper Rio Grande Reservoirs Discussed issues of lack of storage in Upper Rio Grande, evap orative losses in lower res ervoirs such as Elephant Butte, historically have not been a ble to store here — except underground when flows allow — RT may look at these issues — very complicated with Compact, Colorad o Water Law, engineering and costs Tonight, talking about res ervoirs we do have and why we need to get them into shape to hold water when it is available and use the storage as we did historically History - when CO Gov Corlett and RJ Tipton came from R io G rand Compact meetings and said that CO water rights and historic use would be protected — would allow CO to build additional storage as hoped for in 30’s and 40’s — People believed them — river admin istration continued as since 1907 — for 12 years, from 1940 until 1951, the Compact operated well — Colorado never violated, no admin , no curtailment, then in 1952 to 1968 the flow of the river droppe d from historic flow of about 646,000 feet to average of 544,000 AF/yr — worst drought to date — unprecedented — People of SLV increased use of water and withdrawals from river from 72% to 84% of flow - - was devastating to NM and TX — question is why did they wait so long to sue us? Stipulation made that CO must meet compact obligations yearly or there would be a Federal Master assigned. CO did meet the compact and could not risk falling behind, so over delivered and paid back 400,000+ AF of debt. Then in 1985, E lephant Butte spilled and that erased CO’s debt — which was up to 950.000 AF (only 100,000 allowed) — spill erased debt of 544,000 AF . In 1985, started over — no debt or credit. However, other things were different by then. TEST given by Mel re historic flow s and river admin istration! What happened — 1940 RG at D el N orte was 312 , 000 AF some 77,000 AF delivery/25 % emptied every reservoir completely and used on farms — went in debt 16 , 400 AF 1941 - 102 , 600 -- 45% due — filled all res ervoirs to capacity (RG 51,000 ; SM 41, 000 ; Cont 10,700 ; Beaver Creek 5 , 000 - 113,000 AF stored — carried over 90,000 AF) if had run, would have been biggest river ever (1907 - 1.1 mill AF) – a lot of flooding took place 1942 - 842,800 AF — no delivery required EB spilled — erased all – again fille d all res ervoirs 1943 - 498,000 some 126 , 000 25% delivery — 112,000 debt of 14,000 AF — emptied res ervoirs with carry over storage over 100,000 AF 1944 - 850,000 some 292,000 34% delivered -- paid off debt 382,000 - filled all res ervoirs , stored 113,0 0 0 AF and h ad credit of 90,000 AF When had water, filled res ervoirs and water did not go through gauge at Del Norte — cut down obligations — when low water, emptied res ervoirs but owed a smaller percentage . Reservoirs now have deteriorated -- reduced water storage capac ities due to dam safety issues . Right now, we can not use our res ervoirs the way we should — on all rivers in the SLV — all need improvements to make reliable and be able to store at capacity — easy to do — not a Page 4 of 5 RGBRT Minutes September 12 , 2006