Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OO~{~J <br /> <br />- 5 - <br /> <br />when such flows would be available would be when flood water is being <br />vac4ted from the reservoir. The Fish and Wildlife Service also <br />recommended the acquisition of 1900 acres of land for a big game winter <br />range, and the provision of 8000 acre-feet of Rio Grande water annually <br />for the Honte Vista National Wildlife Development. The Bureau's report <br />does not contemplate that either of these recommendations would be <br />complied with. There appears in the Bureau's report the following <br />significant statement: <br /> <br />"In this connection, it is pertinent that the flows <br />of the Rio Grande are fully appropriated and construction <br />of Wagon Wheel Gap Reservoir would not create any new <br />~at9r supplies which could be assigned to fish and <br />wildlife uses," <br /> <br />In respect to recreaticn, the 1955 plan would provide for the de- <br />velopment of recreational facilities at and near the reservoir in <br />accordance with the tentative recommendation of the National Parks <br />Service. <br /> <br />The Bureau's report states that "At the end of the study (1951) <br />Colorado (uuJ~r the Rio Gra~de Compact provisions) had an accrued <br />credit of 86,900 acre-feet." This statement is subject to some <br />question. The statement as made would include the operation of the <br />Conejos. Without the use of any of the 10,000 acre-feet of annual <br />ucushion" provided for Colorado in the Compact, the operation of Wagon <br />Wheel Gap as contemplated in the report would cause an accrued debit of <br />97,000 acre-feet at the end of the 2'j-year study period. It should be <br />pointed out also that the Bureau in its report assumed there would be <br />in storage at the beginning of the study period (1925) water in the <br />amount of Z:l,OOO acre-feet. Unless a credit were built up prior to <br />the time th~ re3ervoir started to operate, or unless the operation <br />commenced at a time w:en Elephant Butte were spilling, the assumption <br />of this a~ount of water in storage at the beginning of the operation of <br />the recerv:)~r v;:H.:o..ld b'3 fallacious. <br /> <br />f\.ppare!1tly it i:;; the Bureau's posi tion that if it is assumed that <br />the re::;en.oir ,.!Quld i e er'lpty at the beginning of the study period, the <br />operation of the re=frvoi~ would be essentially the same as that given <br />in its report, and that the 241,000 acre-feet of water assumed to be <br />in storage at the b€Jinni~g of the study period would reflect itself <br />as increased depletion at Lobatos. This is indicated by statements <br />on pa.gc 41 of the :report '\'lh-9re it is estimated that the operation of <br />the reservoir as outlined in the report wculd reduce the flow of the <br />Rio Grande at Lcbatos an average of 29,400 acre-feet per year. It is <br />then stated, in eff~ct, that if it were assumed that the reservoir would <br />be empty at the beginning of the study period, the reduction in the <br />flow of the Rio Grande at Lobatos resulting fro~ the reservoir operation <br />would be increased to 38,300 acre-feet per year. It is questionable <br />