WSPC03626 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ n0145R -26- " reservoirs in the Piedra River basin to provide for regulation of deliver-, ies through the tl,nnel and for replacement storage; the San Juan-South Fork diversion (53,000 acre f'eet. not mentioned in the Report); and the .Animas- Rio Grande diversion (l30,OOO acre feet). which is listed (page l20) among the alternative projects, and excluded frClll the sumnaries with the state- ment that "there is insuffioient water for this project and also for the full Animas-La Plata project as outlined, or for the Animas River power development." With respect to the conflict between plans for diverting Animas Hi ver surplus water for irrigation use eitl'er in the San Luis Valley or the La Plata River Valley. Colorado seys that deoision cannot be made by the 'local interests, the State of Colorado. ,or the Bureau of Reolama- tion,prior to the completion 'of individual investigations and reports on the feasibility and economic justification of both prcjects. The Report is not olear as to the period upon which the exportations above mentioned are calculated, whether the drouth cycle of 1931-1940, or long-time aver- ages. From the description on the same page of the San Juan-Chama diver- sion for New Mexico it appears that drouth-oycle averages are given. With respect to that project. the statement is made that, "In exchange for the water thus brought into New Mexico. a like amount would be diverted from the river and its tributaries in Colorado and used for irrigation in the San Luis Valley." Lolorado suggests that in lieu of said statement, the Report should indicate that "an agreement will be required betv.een Colo- rado, New tlexioo and Texas. involving possible revisions of the Rio Grande Compact. in order to determine the benefits to accrue to the San Luis Valley in Colorado by reason of the diversion of water from the San Juan River and its tributaries in Colorado for use in the Rio Grande basin in New !-lexico." .' , 46. The description (at page 94) of the Blue River-South Platte di- version is not adequate or accurate. It should indicate a potential yield estimated at 701,000 acre feet, for the combined yield of the projects proposed by the City of Denver and the Bureau of Rec lamation, and that the project is an enlargement and extension of the Blue River portion of the trans-mountain diversion systems heretofcre initiated by the City and County of Denver. The said Denver system may be described in three partsl (l) the ~Ioffat and Jones Pass tunnels which are constr.ucted, and through which diversions averaging 51,400 acre feet are now being made; (2) the storage reservoir on Williams River. now constructed and the collection systems on Fraser and Williams which are partially constructed and are being extended as needed, which will have the effect of increasing the diversions from said streams and for which increase an allowance of 100,000 acre feet is made in the Report; and (3) potential diversions frCIn the' Blue River. The ultimate use by the City of Denver of water that may be exported from the Fraser, Williams and Blue Rivers is estimated at 350~000 acre feet annually. The Blue River-South Platte project proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation contemplates diversions from the Eagle, Piney" Blue and Hillillllls Rivers and their tributaries. Its potential diversions. in addition to the allowanoe of 100,000 acre feet for Denver IS near-f'uture expansion, will average 550,000 acre feet annually. Such additioniul des. cription of the Blue River-South platte project as may be embodied in the Report should be obtained from the regional cjirector at Denver. which of- fice is conducting the investigations and preparing the report en the project. , l' .