BOARD02112 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MR. GETZ: Felix, I would 1ike.to say something about your:1ast statement on this 30,OOO-acre-feet that.would be.surp1us water of the project. This water could be used by any irrigator in the valley by being diverted above the point where.it would be returned to Alamosa. MR. SPARKS: True. I MR. GETZ: I think that we are going to have to have that sale of that water when the.water becomes available. We are looking at a.time maybe twenty-five years down the road before this water ever_becomes available. MR. SPARKS: No excess water would be available from the Closed ~asin project until such time as the debit to New Mexico is discharged. We estimate that as a period anywhere from twelve_to fifteen years after the project is in full pperation. We are quite a few years off before the project is in operation.-.So we are probably. talking about twenty years at least. - MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Chairman. I will give a little.bit of'my attorney's report now so that there is some continuity. I was going to ~hat a :_ bit about the San Marcos case. at that:time,:and if it is all right:with the board members, I will do that now. The Attorney General did file a statement.of opposition to the San Marcos application. Attorneys, by nature, are an ornery. bunch and we naturally can't do anything from a:reasonable standp~int. Also, the law requires that if you want to participate in a lawsuit, you must file a statement of opposition.. Jt was filed in the San Marcos case.on behalf of. the .Division of Wildlife, the State Engineer . and_ the Depart- ment of Natural Resources.. - We:have opposed the San Marcos .Pipe1ine proposal. At the present-time, we have. filed interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests for production of documents with the company. Their attorneys have asked for. thirty additional days to respond to this. Those pleadings were filed in. conjunction with the Rio Grande Water Conservation District and various water users in the .district.. At the. present time, we are taking an adverse posture on behalf of our. clients with the San Marcos Company. Many of the reasons were enunciated I by Mr. Sparks. -In addition, the San Marcos Pipeline Company did not apply for.we1lpermits, as required by the statute, prior to drilling. some of them and filing in the water court for others. We did. not feel their application showed non-injury. to. water users, which is exactly why we are so much in support of the study that has. been discussed. It is necessary that we develop ollr own information. We are very con.. cerned about possible compact complications with either the Costilla Creek or the Rio-Grande Compacts, as Mr.:Sparks reported. -#48-