Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br />., <br /> <br />'l! <br /> <br />'00.2'37'2 <br /> <br />- 5 - <br /> <br />Under the 1955 version of the project, three of the Fish and Wildlife <br />Service's recommendations would not be strictly complied with. Minimum <br />flows would not be guaranteed in the amount of 60 second-feet for the winter <br />months as recommended by the Service; the only period when such flows <br />would be available would be when flood water is being vacated from the <br />reservoir. The Fish and Wildlife Service also recommended the acquisition <br />of 1900 acres of land for a big game winter range, and the provision of <br />8000 acre-feet of Rio Grande water annually for the Monte Vista National <br />Wildlife Development. The Bureau's report does not contemplate that <br />either of these recommendations would be complied with. There appears <br />in the Bureau's report the following significant statement: <br /> <br />"In this connection, it is pertinent that the flows of the <br />Rio Grande are fully appropriated and construction <br />of Wagon Wheel Gap Reservoir would not create any <br />new water supplies which could be assigned to fish <br />and wildlife uses," <br /> <br />In respect to recreation, the 1955 plan would provide for the develop- <br />ment of recreational facilities at and near the reservoir in accordance <br />with the tentative recommendation of the National Parks Service. <br /> <br />The Bureau's report states that "At the end of the study (1951) <br />Colorado (under the Rio Grande Compact provisions) had an accrued <br />credit of 86,900 acre -feet." This statement is subject to some question. <br />The statement as made would include the operation of the Conejos. Without <br />the use of any of the 10,000 acre-feet of annual "cushion" provided for <br />Colorado in the Compact, the operation of Wagon Wheel Gap as contemplated <br />in the report would cause an accrued debit of 96,000 acre -feet at the end of <br />the 26-year study period. It should be pointed out also that the Bureau in <br />its report assumed there would be in storage at the beginning of the study <br />period (1925) water in the amount of 241, 000 acre-feet. Unless a credit <br />were built up prior to the time the reservoir started to operate, or unless <br />the operation commenced at a time when Elephant Butte were spilling, the <br />assumption of this amount of water in storage at the beginning of the operation <br />of the reservoir would be fallacious. <br /> <br />Apparently it is the Bureau's position that if it is assumed that the <br />reservoir would be empty at the beginning of the study period, the operation <br />of the reservoir would be essentially the same as that given in its report, <br />and that the 241,000 acre-feet of water assumed to be in storage at the <br />beginning of the study period would reflect itself as increased depletion at <br />Lobatos. This is indicated by statements on page 41 of the report where <br />it is estimated that the operation of the reservoir as outlined in the report <br />would reduce the flow of the Rio Grande at Lobatos an average of 29,400 <br />acre-feet per year, It is then stated, in effect, that if it were assumed that <br />