PUB00068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..;67;' . ThR District sEjid it would sign the coni{ractif it were approved by the electorsb;'t that the repayment contract would in itself mean noth- j,nr, unless the secondary agreements with. the water users were negoti- ated and signed. This results from the fact that the Conejos flows are overappropriated ~nd no firm supply will be available for storag8 in Platoro unless the holders ofdirect-fl~1 rights forbear the use of a porti on of those rights during the he avy spring run-off and permit the water to be stored in Platoro. Further, the District told the Bureau that it seri-ously doubted i- ts abiii ty to secure the secondary agree- ments .:i th the 0,"1181'S of the esc:ential watRr' rights so long as the pro- je<':t was subject to the land limitation p1'ovisions. The payment contract was signed, and the dam has be8n built. How- ever, the essential contracts with the owners of the water rights have nc,t been exec\.lted. / At pr8sent the FlatoroDam and Jieservoir is inoper- ative except for flood_control purposes. ' . The efforts, to secure a modification' of the land limitation pro- visions so far as the Conejos Frojectis concerned, may prove a valuable case studJ' to those who are interested in Bureau of Reclamation projects in Colorado. In 1947, pursuant to the advice of its leaders in Congress, Colorado joined with Texas and California in a bill to exempt certain named supplemental Hater projects in the three states from the land limi- tation laws. The San Luis Valley Froject was one of those included in the bill. Extensive hearings were held by the Committee on Public Lands of the United States Senate. Opposition to the bill was centered on certain California and Texas projects. The Committee made no report on the bill. In 1949'the Colorado senators ,introduced S. 1385 which'per- tained only to the San Luis Valley Project. At the committee hearing on this bi-ll a lett:er dated July 20, 1949, from the Secretary of the Intedor, reporting on the bill, was presented. That letter said among other things, that the Conejos Division of the San Luis Valley Project presented" a somewhat unique relationship with established use of water, and irrigation practices not readily adaptable to farm units of 160 irrigable acres, or 320 irrigable acres for man and wife, as permi ttedby existing law." The bill, which did not remove all limitations but enlarged the permis- sible ovmership'iri one individual to 480 acres, was passed unanimously by both the Senate and House. ' The Fresident of the' United States then vetoed the bill upon the ground that it violated a "national policy of long-standing. " After the clisappointing veto of S. 1385 the solicitor of the In- terior Department announced an opinion in a matter involving the Tulare Irrigation District of California.' i!jany lawyers interpreted this opinion as holding that the limitations imposed by the Federal Reclamation laws , meant that no la~d owner could receive a greater quantity of project ""ater than that reasonably required to irri["ate 160 acres. If, such was the case, the opinion furnished a possible solution of the Conejos prob- lem. Accordingly, the attorney for the District wrote the Secretary of the Interior on February 27, 1950, requesting the application of the so- called Tulare form\,lato the Conejos. In January, '1952" an adverse rul- ing was apparently'made as the Commissioner of Reclamation wrote his field representatives that the excess land provisions must be met on the Conej os and that they, meant alimUa.tion on land rather thanwater. . .