Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Storage vs Yield Approaches <br />September 25, 1990 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Evaporation Loss <br /> <br />We understand that New Mexico currently is charged (against its Compact entitlement} <br />evaporation losses on Navajo Reservoir. Under a storage approach, we believe that it <br />would be reasonable that New Mexico would not have to be charged evaporation losses <br />on the portion of the reservoir designated for use for the endangered fish. New Mexico <br />could gain 10-15 thousand acre-feet of consumptive water for in-basin demands if <br />evaporation losses on the Recovery Plan storage were paid for by the Recovery Plan. <br />The New Mexico recovery of evaporation losses under a yield approach would be more <br />difficult to establish. <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />I believe a storage approach is a better strategy than a yield approach to propose in <br />a reasonable and prudent alternative for three reasons. First, a storage approach offers <br />a more flexible means of protecting the endangered fish and should be more palatable <br />to the USFWS as a long term solution. The water users of both Colorado and New <br />Mexico should offer the alternative which has the greatest probability of being accepted <br />by the USFWS and the Secretary of the Interior. <br /> <br />We believe the storage approach should be attractive to New Mexico since it would <br />allow New Mexico complete control over a given amount of storage, and would allow <br />New Mexico to convert approximately half of the water currently used to pay <br />evaporation losses into water available for consumptive uses for New Mexico. <br /> <br />Questions or comments about this discussion should be addressed to Ross Bethel. <br />Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, 2401 15th Street, Suite 300, Denver, <br />Colorado, 80202, (303) 759-4491. <br /> <br />~ Leonard Rice Consulting Waler Engineers. Inc. <br /> <br />1 <br />