Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />u <br />' William J. Killip, II <br />September 18, 1996 <br />' Page 3 <br />CARLSON, HAMMOND 8c PADDOCK, L.L.C. <br />only during the irrigation season and only if the Rio Grande Canal needs to recharge at this <br />' location. Recharge water may also be delivered during November and December under the <br />water rights of the Rio Grande Water Users Association if the Rio Grande has complied with <br />' its separate obligation under the Rio Grande Compact and the canal does not freeze. In <br />many years, it is not physically possible to run recharge after late November due to ice. <br />' The District receives no compensation for this recharge program. Operation of the <br />program is funded by the CWCB grant and the District's tax revenues. This project is part <br />of an overall effort to ensure the long-term viabiliry of the agricultural economy in the closed <br />' basin by ensuring a reliable supply of water to unconfined aquifer wells, including those of <br />the State Land Board located on adjacent lands. The District is simply acting in its <br />governmental capacity to promote the practice of groundwater recharge in an effort to <br />, preserve the water supply necessary to sustain the agricultural economy. <br />Attached to the enclosed lease is a sketch map of the recharge facilities. As you can <br />' see, they involve a minima) intrusion on the State Land Board's land. The facilities consist <br />of several additional diversions from the Rio Grande Canal Lateral No. 5 as it traverses the <br />land, the placement of several small berms in a drainage on the property to back up water <br />' delivered from the Rio Grande Canal, and the installation of several sets of monitoring wells <br />to observe the effect of the groundwater recharge program. These activities have little <br />impact on the existing grazing lease on the property. The delivery of water to the land <br />' probably improves the livestock grazing and certainly improves the water supply for the <br />wells of the State Land Board (ocated on adjacent lands. <br />' The enclosed lease is patterned on the similar (ease between the State Board of Land <br />Commissioners ("State Land Board") and the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, <br />Lease No. S-40036. The principal differences between this lease and the lease with the <br />' Central Colorado Water Conservancy District are that the term of the lease is only for ten <br />years and there is no rental payment based upon the annual quantity of water delivered for <br />recharge. Given the nature of this project, the fact that the District is not paid for its <br />' recharge program, and the direct benefit to the wells of the State Land Board, I believe you <br />can understand why the District does not believe a per acre-foot rent is feasible. Other than <br />' those two changes, I believe that the enclosed lease is substantially the same as Lease No. <br />S-40036. <br />' I would appreciate it if you would review the lease and let me know if you have any <br />questions. If the Board would like to discuss this further or would like a technical <br />presentation regarding the recharge program, the DistricYs engineer, Mr. Allen Davey, and <br />' <br />, A-10 <br />