Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-- .~-"...>.~_..,.~.-. -, <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />OOO~55 <br /> <br />() <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />Mr. Teems suggested tha t observatioll wtdls and lOgR be main- <br /> <br />tained by tbose living close to the project to determine any ad- <br /> <br />verse affects that might result. The Board wholehesrtedly agrees. <br /> <br />they do and always have supported any measure which will prevent <br /> <br />damage to any person in tha t area. Mr. Teems further sugges ts <br /> <br />than an alternative to the project is closer management of water, <br /> <br />that about 25 years ago there was a surplus of water. We do <br /> <br />agree closer management is an alternative. but the administra- <br /> <br />tion of the Rio Grande which bas taken place in the past four <br /> <br />years that bas resulted in a decrease in the debt to New Mexico <br /> <br />and Texas has worked a hardship on the decreed water users of the <br /> <br />Rio Grande and its major tributaries. It is difficult to justify <br />an alternative that works to the detriment of the economy of the Valley <br /> <br />generally and decreed water users of the Rio Grande specifically. <br /> <br />It is also difficult to find data that supports the claim that <br />there was a surplus of wa ter a bout 25 yea rs ago. Reports of <br /> <br />proceedings of the Rio Grande Compact Commission meetings show <br /> <br />that from 1945 to 1959. a period of 15 years, a debit occurred <br /> <br />in 12 years and a credit occurred in three years in rela bon to <br /> <br />the schedule of deliveries to be made at Lobatos under the terms <br /> <br />of the Rio Grande Compad.. <br />