|
<br />have not had any occasion in the last 20 years to (inaudible)... But now our situation where the
<br />(inaudible).. .so your statement that it was 80% ag, it also seems like.. ..(inaudible)...
<br />
<br />Jack - We might see...it will be interesting to see, at the end ofthe statistical year, to see what the
<br />actual water supply was. We think its about half of what it normally would be. In other words,
<br />we usually have around 17-18 million AF to deal with, we think we're going to have around 6
<br />million AF that we can actually be dealt with. It will be interesting to see how that water is
<br />distributed and where it went. Because your point is, does that mean that the ag use water will
<br />reduce down to 60%. My gut tells me it won't go that much of an exchange, but I think it will be
<br />interesting to see.
<br />
<br />- You mentioned keeping water away from Nebraska, 1've heard there's a problem in
<br />New Mexico as well?
<br />
<br />Jack- We generally try to meet all ofour...I want to make this real clear...we strive to meet all of
<br />our interstate compact responsibilities. Having said that, with respect to most of our compacts in
<br />dry years, now this doesn't apply to the Platte and I'll explain that. .. most of our compacts, Rio
<br />Grande, Conejos and so on, in dry years, our requirement for delivery is less. And as it gets dryer
<br />and dryer, since our requirement goes down, we're usually able to meet that. There are some
<br />cases where transit losses are such that if we tried to meet an interstate compact delivery from
<br />point a to point b, even though we put all the water in the river we can, it might not make it to
<br />point b. And that's a case by case basis, and its sometimes a day-by-day, week-by-week, month-
<br />by-month situation. And 1'm not prepared today to be able to tell you exactly where that is with
<br />respect to the La Plata. Certainly it is one of those streams that we have difficulty with. Now, the
<br />Platte. The Platte has a number, 120 cfs, and so it's a little different than a moving scale, that's
<br />why I said other than the Platte. Anything else? Sorry for the length of time, I hope it was
<br />valuable to you.
<br />
<br />Brad - Next up, Bureau ofReclarnation. Verne?
<br />
<br />Verne Leverson - I'll give a quick summAry of Bureau of Reclarnation Reservoir Storage. 1'll
<br />pass around a handout.. . first page is a table, second page is a summAry. If you first look at the
<br />table. . . you can see that there is a listing of the various reservoirs, we also give the contents as of
<br />the 30th of April, and we did also the contents at the same time last year, and the average end of
<br />month contents for comparison. We also present the percent of average, as well as percent of
<br />capacity of the reservoirs. Start at the top with Blue Mesa, which at the end of April was about
<br />503,000 AF, 160% of average. It's high, because it's a dry year, and we're not worried about
<br />flood control, so we're keeping extra water in it for that reason. In a wet year, that percent average
<br />number would be lower. Four Point and Crystal, they're usually held about the same, they don't
<br />vary too much. Taylor Park, 67,000 AF, now up to about 70,000 AF. I should have mentioned
<br />back on Blue Mesa, it's 503,000 AF the end of April, we checked again this morning, it's down to
<br />485,000 AF. Paonia, 14.5, now it's up to 16.8, it's basically filled. Ridgway, about 71,000AF.
<br />McPhee 214,000 AF, that was only 70 or so percent of average. Lemon, 16,000 AF end of April,
<br />it is now down to 11,000 AF, so the demands are coming, coming on line. Vallicito was 64,000
<br />AF, now down to 51,000 AF, so it's dropped down below 100% of average. We go over to the
<br />East side, the CBT project, look at Lake Granby, was 233,000 AF which was 71 % of average, it's
<br />
<br />17
<br />
|