PROJ00495 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the cost of a permanent diversion dam. Inaddition, some stretches of the canal were difficult to maintain. The diversion dam and headgate were severely damaged in the early 1960's and again in 1965, and were not reconstructed to their previous competency. Since 1984, some Manvel water has been diverted into and delivered to Manvel shareholders through the Lamar Canal. The Lamar Canal and Irrigation Company charged the Manvel 30 percent of the water as Ii carriage charge. Table 13 summarizes the water diverted into the Manvel Canal during water years 1950-85. This water averaged 1,332 acre-feet annually, and ranged from none in several years to 6,814 acre-feet in 1959. The effects of flood damage in the 1960's is apparent in the table, especially so by contrasting the diversions before and after 1964. The diversions averaged 2,368 acre-feet annually during 1950-63 and 704 acre-feet annually during 1965- 85. As for the Sisson-Stubbs and X-V Canals, part of the water available under the Manvel Canal water right is derived through its Article II Account in John Martin Reservoir. This account receives 2.40 percent of the releases from conservation storage for Colorado ditches and part of the transit loss account residual. As shown in column 4 of Table 8, the inflow into the Manvel Account averaged 2,615 acre-feet annually during water years 1980-94 and 961 acre-feet annually during water years 1990-94. The yield of the Manvel water rights was evaluated in a previous study by this consultant for the Manvel Canal and Irrigation Company. The conclusion from that study was that the long-term yield of the Manvel would be approximately 2,444 acre-feet annually, of which 2,000 acre-feet would be derived from the Manvel Article II Storage Account and 444 acre-feet annually would be additional water available from the Arkansas River under the Colorado priority system. A consumptive use rate of 60 percent for this water was recognized by the State Engineer in his March 30,1995 approval of the Colorado Beef Substitute Water Supply Plan and was adopted for use in this feasibility study. This value is consistent with the canal, lateral, and farm efficiencies in the Colorado Water Budget. Since the Lamar and Manvel Canals are treated together in the Colorado Water Budget, it was not possible to obtain canal, lateral, and farm efficiencies directly therefrom. Therefore, this water right should provide consumptive use credits averaging approximately 1 ,466 acre-feet annually. 26