WSPC04991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

., ., ' December 4, ,,'c6'bs23 , 1973 ". . " ~. \" , ISSUE NO. J. \ and !all of the I \ tribu tarie s Should the Conejos River and the Rio Grande 1:)e administered under one priority system? YES 1. The Rio Grande Compact did not repeal the Colorado Constitutional doctrine of prior appropriation or its system of administering waters under the priority system. 2, The compact commitment is the number one WGter right on the system and that "call" is at the Lobatos Gaging Station, 3. With the "call" at the Lobatos Gaging Station, which is below the confluence of the Conejos, Rio Grande and their tributaries, Colorado water law requires that upstream water rights shaJl be cur- tailed in reverse order of priority, if such curtailment will satisfy that "call" or a portion thereof, 4. Recent studies have indicated that most of the water in the San Luis Valley meets the definitions in Section 148-21-3(3) and (4) , 5, The special delivery schedules for the Conejos and the Rio Grande as outlined in the compact are nothing more than mathematical calculations to determine Colorado's obligations to deliver water at the New Mexico state line. 6. It is contrary to Color ado water law to shut off a decreed water right on the Conejos which is senior to a decreed water right on the Rio Grande which is permitted to continue to divert when the "call" is below the confluence of the two rivers. NO 1, Special delivery schedules for the Conejos River and the Rio Grande, as a part of the compact, require administration as two separate rivers, 2, Historically, these rivers have been administered as separate entities in accordance with the delivery schedules outlined in the compact. 3. Intrastate negotiations at the time of the promulgation of the compact an ticipated sep~ rute adminis tra tion of the two rivers according to compact schedules,