|
<br />CHRONOLOGY
<br />WATER POLITICS
<br />OETHE
<br />UPPER BASIN
<br />
<br />PRE-COMPACf PERIOD
<br />
<br />':~ 18805 ,Water fully appropriated for irri.
<br />i'g:ation.
<br />,~1889 Beginning of drought cycle which
<br />~ aggravates problemaf oyer appropriation in
<br />the-Upper RJoGrande. '
<br />,: 18908 Periodic complaints from the Mexi.
<br />"~an governmentregarding loss of water that
<br />j ),uarez-area farmers had hi5~oricaUy used.
<br />j 1893 ,Rio Grande Dam and IrtigationCom:-'
<br />panyJiles for right of way to construct a dam
<br />! at the Elephant Butte site.
<br />i 1895 Secretary of Interior approves the',
<br />. application for the right afway for Elephant
<br />i Butte Dam, li,)1
<br />l' A\isust 1896 Mexico submits petition tcrthe
<br />:'.:State Department opposing the private., ~
<br />~ ,d~'iI~lopment of Elephant Butte Reservoir as
<br />S prtdermining the. potential for ah lnterna~
<br />j" tional dam project'( .
<br />" Pf;!'cember 1896 Morat()rium ordered by
<br />::; the Secretary of Interior on the 1approval Of
<br />;/_ right~of~way applications for\-.:ater proj~cts
<br />:: onth€! Rio Grande. This emb~o precludes
<br />:~evelo1>ment o~anymajor storagefaciJities
<br />i' in the basi~.
<br />_1, ,1902 The Reclamation Act of 1902 is passed
<br />; into I;aw, estabHshinglhe. Reclamation
<br />; ServIce.
<br />i 1903 Reclamation Service identifies Ele-,
<br />L phant Butte as most suitable site fora fed~
<br />:-.eraJproject to satisfy 'both domestic and
<br />Mt>xicanirrigation needs.
<br />,
<br />-1,1906 ReclanUltion Service files with the
<br />i New Mexico Territorial Engineer for a right
<br />to'13o,000 af of the upper Rio Grande at Ele-
<br />_ phant Butte later amending the application
<br />iin 1908 for all unappropriated flows. '.
<br />j May 1906 Mexico and the United States
<br />; .~'gntreaty providing for,an annual deliyery
<br />~ 0(60,000 acte feet to Mexico in exchange for
<br />) ,its -dropping all further claims to da1!'ages or
<br />-1 "",aters from the upper Rio Grande,
<br />,J 1906 The secretarial moratorium of 1896 is
<br />; modified to allow constructionaf the Ele~'
<br />:, phS;nt Butte Dam as well as other storage
<br />I facilities constructed for the benefit of water
<br />:_ rights existin~ prior to March 1, ,1903.
<br />] ,1906 to 1929 Several small dams are con-
<br />i s~nit.ted in Colorado and New -Mexico in
<br />; or.d!tt to capture runoff needed for irrigation
<br />; ,under pre~1903 water rights upstream of
<br />; Elephant Butte.
<br />:1916 Construction of ElephilrltButte Dam
<br />C,iscomplcted. 3l
<br />t May 1918 The Elept{ant Butte Irrigation
<br />i District of New Mexico is authorized to coIi-
<br />i. tr~i:lwith the Reclamation Service for iniga,
<br />~ .tion works servicirtg the area downstream of
<br />; 'the dam. New Mexico lands eligible for
<br />~ -water deliveries from Elephant Butte Reser-
<br />~ v()i,r include 88,350 acres.
<br />
<br />--
<br />
<br />8
<br />
<br />Or 11"cr-
<br />JJ.,
<br />
<br />stream systems (Alamosa, La Jara,
<br />and Trinchera creeks) to help satisfy
<br />the Rio Grande delivery require.
<br />ments under the compact. Another
<br />controversial rule involved separate
<br />administration of the Conejos River
<br />and the Rio Grande mainstem. These
<br />proposed rules, as well as the ground
<br />water regulations, were objected to in
<br />the Alamosa water court, resulting in
<br />a costly 12 week trial.
<br />
<br />The controversy eventually reached
<br />the Colorado Supreme Court which
<br />handed down its landmark decision
<br />in 1983. It upheld the separate admin,
<br />istration of the Conejos River and the
<br />Rio Grande mainstem, but denied
<br />the State Engineer the right to admin-
<br />ister Alamosa, La Jara, and Trinchera
<br />creeks to help meet the compact obli-
<br />gations. Then in an important
<br />pronouncement, the court struck
<br />down the proposed well regulations
<br />as being contrary to the policy of
<br />"maximum utilization" of the state's
<br />water resources.
<br />
<br />In looking at the facts in the San Luis
<br />Valley, the court saw that it might not
<br />be consistent with the policy of maxi-
<br />mum utilization to prohibit the tap-
<br />ping of vast underground water
<br />reserves (estimated at 2 billion acre
<br />feet underlying the Valley) simply to
<br />keep a ribbon of surface water flow-
<br />ing in the Rio Grande riverbed.
<br />Under such circumstances, it may be
<br />necessary to require senior surface
<br />water users to drill wells in order to
<br />obtain their supply. The court did not
<br />actually mandate this radical
<br />approach, but sent the case back to
<br />the State Engineer to reformulate the
<br />rules in accordance with the state
<br />water policy of maximum utilization.
<br />
<br />To date, the State Engineer has not
<br />promulgated new rules for regulating
<br />ground water pumping in the San
<br />Luis Valley. Due to an unanticipated
<br />increase of the available supply
<br />beginning in 1986, the well users and
<br />affected senior surface rights holders
<br />were able to agree to a solution to
<br />their controversy. Under the agree~
<br />ment, junior wells can continue to be
<br />pumped, while the impacts of their
<br />pumping on senior surface rights will
<br />be mitigated by the delivery of "sal.
<br />
<br />vaged" waters-to the Rio Grande from
<br />the Closed Basin Project.
<br />
<br />THE CLOSED BASIN PROJECT
<br />
<br />The water salvaged by the Closed
<br />Basin Project originates from the
<br />northeasterly portion of the San Luis
<br />Valley which is hydraulically separate
<br />from the drainage area of the Rio
<br />Grande. The 300,000 af of average
<br />annual runoff and underground per-
<br />colation that become trapped in the
<br />closed basin eventually evaporate
<br />from the surface or are used by the
<br />greasewood, rabbitbrush, and other
<br />deep-rooted vegetation.
<br />
<br />After the signing of the temporary
<br />Rio Grande Compact in 1929, Colo.
<br />rado attempted to obtain federal
<br />funding for salvaging the waters of
<br />the closed basin. Such efforts failed
<br />until 1972 when Congress authorized
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation to pursue
<br />the Closed Basin Project, The com~
<br />pleted Project is designed to consist
<br />of 170 wells, 113 miles of pipeline, and
<br />a 42-mile long canal that discharges
<br />into the Rio Grande, Eighty,four
<br />observation wells, 200 miles of road,
<br />and an electrical transmission net-
<br />work are also required for the salvage
<br />of 100,000 af of closed basin ground
<br />water each year. The project is more
<br />than half finished, with completion
<br />scheduled for 1991.
<br />
<br />This project is 100% funded by the
<br />federal government due in part to the
<br />rationale that the first 60,000 aflyr of
<br />water salvaged by the project helps
<br />meet the delivery requirements owed
<br />by treaty to Mexico. San Luis Valley
<br />water users, however, are the primary
<br />beneficiaries of the Project, since each
<br />acre-foot delivered to the Rio Grande
<br />from the closed basin allows local
<br />water users to consume an additional
<br />acre-foot elsewhere in the Valley.
<br />Conejos River water users will benefit
<br />from 24,000 aflyr of this total, with
<br />Colorado users on the Rio Grande
<br />mainstem receiving credit for 36,000
<br />af/yr. The next several thousand acre
<br />feet are earmarked for delivery to the
<br />Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge
<br />and other areas to promote wildlife
<br />and recreation, Additional salvaged
<br />water can be marketed within the state.
<br />
<br />I'
<br />I'
<br />
<br />,
<br />.
<br />,
<br />1
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />I
<br />
|