Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~oo.t; <br /> <br />Indian rights downstream. We don't care how <br />they use it so there is no point in attempting <br />to put a limitation when we have already achieved <br />our purpose another way. Careful hydrology <br />studies were done by our engineering staff, our <br />consultant Mr. Jex, and by the Bureau people to <br />determine the possible effects. This was the I <br />best answer we could come up with to achieve our <br />purpose - to keep that Animas-La Plata Project <br />whole. It hee ,orne hietoria ,hortagee but we did . <br />not want to increase those shortages. Are there <br />any further questions up to that point? <br /> <br />On page three there was no change from the <br />original. There has never been any change on <br />page three. <br /> <br />On page four, this was our original amend- <br />ment which New Mexico reluctantly agreed to. <br />They agreed to the change that the operation and <br />construction of the diversion facilities of the <br />initial stage of the San Juan-Chama should only <br />include the Navajo, Little Navajo and Blanco <br />Rivers. That's to prevent them at a later date <br />from picking up the flow of other tributaries <br />which actually these diversion facilities will <br />cross. They must flume those other streams, and <br />only pick up from these three streams. That is <br />just the way it was discussed with the Board at <br />our previous meeting. There have been no changes <br />made in that. <br /> <br />On page five, in the first caps under pro- <br />vision (a), it was presented to this Board origi- <br />nally as 1,100,000 acre-feet of water. Now we <br />knew that figure was too low and we put it low <br />merely for a beginning point. The hydrology, as <br />we already know, shows that to get a 110,000 foot <br />average, which is what they claim they need for <br />the project, there must be a 1,350,000 acre-feet <br />diversion in any ten-year period. But when you <br />l~mit the project to those three streams that we <br />have already mentioned, actually they cannot, on <br />the small term average, really get 110,000 feet <br />annually. So that figure was immaterial to us, I <br />but the project itself is limited by the hydrology <br />of the stream flows. Therefore we put it up to <br />what the historic records show was the maximum <br />that they could get in any ten-year period. <br />Otherwise, it is the same." <br /> <br />MR. CONOUR: <br /> <br />"Mr. Sparks, would you explain what the words <br />