Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'", <br />J <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />flO'~jiS <br /> <br />- 3 - <br /> <br />Page 31. Strike the words "and be lost" at the end of the first <br />full paragraph. <br /> <br />Page 31. Second full paragraph, 11th line - strike the remainder of <br />the sentence beginning with the words "and to prevent reduction of <br />available capacity... . . ." <br /> <br />Page 31. <br />substitute <br /> <br />Second full paragraph <br />the following therefor: <br /> <br />- delete next to last sentence and <br /> <br />"They may be reduced by subsequent debits caused by <br />deficiencies in the actual deliveries at Lobatos; they will <br />be reduced by evaporation as such credits must bear their <br />proportional share of the Compact project storage evaporation; <br />and they may be lost by spill from project storage." <br /> <br />Page 35. Delete first sentence of numbered paragraph "a" and <br />substitute the following therefor: : <br /> <br />"When necessary under the terms of the Rio Grande Compact <br />direct-flow water will be passed through the reservoir to <br />prevent an increase in storage. II <br /> <br />Pages 36-44. Recast entire section entitled "Results" beginning on <br />page 36 and ending on page 44, first reflecting the results of the operation <br />of the reservoir on the assumption that it would be empty at the beginning <br />of the study period, and, second, deleting all reference to the effect on the <br />water supplies of New Mexico and Texas. The emphasis should be on <br />compliance with the Rio Grande Compact based on annual deliveries at <br />Lobatos. As the section is now set up, the discussion under the heading <br />"New Mexico" beginning top of page 41 and ending top of page 43, including <br />Table 3 on page 44, would leave the implication that Colorado is obligated <br />to maintain the flow at the state line which on a monthly basis would <br />not adversely affect the water supply of New Mexico. Colorado has no <br />such obligation; her obligation is for delivery at the state line of certain <br />quantities of water on an annual basis. <br /> <br />With respect to the section having the heading "Texas" on page 43. <br />the implication might be that Colorado has an obligation to see that Texas <br />would be provided with an average annual release of 790,000 acre -feet as <br />defined by the Rio Grande Compact. Again, this is not true. <br /> <br />On the other side of the picture, in my own opinion, if I were <br />a representative of either New Mexico or Texas I would not feel too <br />much assured by the above-mentioned statements as they appear in the <br />