WSPC00539

• File Number: 8530.300
• Description: Rio Grande Basin-Water User Groups and Conservancy Districts-Rio Grande Water Conservation District
• State: CO
• Basin: Rio Grande
• Water Division: 3
• Date: 7/20/1970
• Title: WCD-Rio Grande Water Conservation District-Corres Reports etc-1967-82-Preliminary Engineering Report for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

r

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

2

TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE DOARD
nro GllANDE lyATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
,

Gen tl emen :

Following is a report preparcd from our findings and preliminary study made for
The Rio Grands Water Conscrvation District from April 1968 to this time in
connection with possible water salvage projects in the San Luis Valley of Colo-
rado and our observations of problems that have developed subsequent to ratifi-
cation of the Rio Grande Compact.

STATENENT OF TIlE SI'TIJATION

The Hio Grande Compact was ratified in 1939. The Compact stipulated Colorado's
obligation to deliver water in the Hio Grande to New Mexico and Texas. The
amount of Colorado's obligation was established by schedules which required the
Conejos River and the Rio Grande to deliver amounts of water proportional to
the volume of water which passed certain specified index stations.

Annual reports of the Rio Grande Compact Con~ission show that at the end of
1951, Colorado had a net delivery, since 1939, of 900 acre feet more than re-
quired by the Compact. Colorado has not had a credit balance at the end of
any subaequent year although Colorado did meet its annual delivery in 1958 and
1966. On the basis of the schedule for the Conejos River and Hio Grande
individually since 1951, the Commission reports indicate that the Rio Grande
delivered in excess of its schedule in 1958, 1966 and 1967; contrariwise, the ~
Conejos River has not delivered its scheduled volume although it lacked only
500 acre feet of meeting delivery in 1966.

At the end of 1967, Colorado had a net debit balance of 944,400 acre feet as
measured by the Compact schedule. Apparently New Nexico and Texas believed that
Colorado would continue to accumulate a greater debit unless they took necessary
action to require Colorado to meet the scheduled deliveries, and accordingly
brought suit against Colorado.

Colorado secured a continuance of the suit brought against it by Texas and New
Mexico on the condition that ".. . the State of Colorado shall exercise its best
efforts and use all available administrative powers including, if necessary, the
curtailment of diversions... ". Accordingly, the State of Colorado, through
the State Engineer, decided to administer the Rio Grande and Conejos River in
a manner which would annually meet the delivery obligation as established by
the schedules in the Rio Grande Compact. The policy adopted by the State Engineer
to effect this decision was to estimate the annual flow of each river to pass
the index stations, relate the estimated runoff to the scheduled Compact
delivery in terms of percent and administer the diversions from the rivers in
s manner which at any time would allow the required percentage of flow to
remain in the rivers to be measured as delivery at the Lobatos gaging station,

",

0559