WSP01376

• File Number: 8142.700
• Description: Trinidad Project - Annual Operating Plans and Reports
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 12/1/1988
• Author: US DoI BoR
• Title: Review of Operating Principles Final Report
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Operating Principles/Plan

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

('. {.... t' '"(
~~o.J 3. Acreage Shift

Article IV B.1. of the Operating Principles provides that the "19,717 acres of
the District's irrigable area shall be composed as nearly as practicable" to
specified areas under the indi vi dua 1 ditches. The areas specified are the same
as the tabulation that appears in the Bureau's Irrigation Report on the Trinidad
Project, July 1964. The 1985 survey of irrigable lands revealed a shift in the
location of the irrigated lands. The following tabluation shows the original
irrigable acreage distribution, the acreage distribution from the 1985 survey,
and the differences:

Ditch

Baca Joint
Chile
South Side
Victor Florez
E 1 Moro
Model
Johns Flood
Hoehne
Burns & Duncan
Lewelling-McCormick
Salas

II Includes

1964 Report

1985 Survey

2,428
114
6,359
22
160
6,177
1,854
1,742
322
378
161
19;7T7

2,516 1/
112 -
5,566
o
156
7,079
.1,722
1,618
174
389
53
19,385

Baca Ditch
Picketwire-Chicosa
L uj an
Northside
E 1 I~oro

324
632
908
266
385
2,516

Diff .

88
-2
-793
-22
-4
902
-132
-124
-148
11
-108
-332

This tabulation shows the major shift of acreage is from the South Side System
to the Mode 1 1 ands. By i ncreas i ng the acreage under the Mode 1 and decreas i ng
that of the South Side, the project water transferred would be used on an area
several miles farther from the river and return flow from this transferred water
wou 1 d occur we 11 below the area of reuse of return flow with i n the project.
Thus, less Project return flow would be available for Project demand, more
return flow to Purgatoire River would flow out of the project area, and more
reservoir release would be required for irrigating the same amount of acreage.
However, a portion of the additional return flow would be offset by the addi-
tional transportation losses caused by the length of the Model Canal.

A review of the irrigation reports suggests that the purpose for specifying
the number of acres to be irrigated under each ditch was to satisfy the
irrigators within the project area that the distribution of project benefits
would be fair. There is no indication that the protection of downstream water
rights was a consideration in the distribution of project lands to be served.
The limit on the total irrigated acreage of 19,717 was the primary protection
for downstream users. As in the case of the i rri gat i on of 6W 1 ands, we fi nd
no evidence that the shift of location of irrigated land within the project
has any harmful impacts on the downstream water rights.

41

,." 4, ,~