My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06480
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06480
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:22:58 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:39:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8546.200
Description
AWDI - Mailing Lists/Correspondence
State
CO
Basin
Rio Grande
Water Division
3
Date
6/6/1983
Title
The San Luis Valley Groundwater Dispute
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />'0:1" <br />GO <br />GO <br />:.).;;:-::~~;~ ' <br /> <br />'....') <br /> <br />evapotranspiration and removal from groundwater <br />storage. See Attachment 7, San Luis Valley Pumping <br />Effects. <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />The State concluded, and Conejos agreed, that well <br />withdrawals by wells, which as a class were junior <br />to the surface water rights, were injuring those <br />surface rights unless they augmented the stream. <br /> <br />E. Opponents' Case <br /> <br />1. The opponents attacked the basic assumption of <br />hydraulic connection; while the San Luis Valley Well <br />Users Association admitted there was some small <br />amount of interconnection between the Conejos and <br />the confined aquifer, they denied that it was <br />substantial. Through examination of Phil Emery, <br />author of the U.S.G.S. work, they asserted that the <br />basic fact of hydraulic connection was not basically <br />proven but rather only assumed. <br /> <br />2. Opponents further pointed to the offsetting impact <br />of the salvaged evapotranspiration, relying again on <br />Emery who, as matter of policy and resource effi- <br />ciency, felt that more well pumping rather than less <br />was advisable. <br /> <br />3. Opponents' basic argument was that to tie up the 2 <br />billion acre-feet of groundwater and the salvage of <br />evapotranspiration to support the relatively small <br />and inefficient community of senior ditch rights was <br />not legal. They pointed to the case of Colorado <br />sprinrs v. Bender, 148 Colo. 458, 366 P.2d 552 <br />(1961 , arguing that inefficient diversion works <br />(ditches) could not compel curtailment of more <br />efficient juniors unless the senior had penetrated <br />the aquifer to the full extent of this "economic <br />reach". They pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court case <br />of Schodde v. Twin Falls Land and Water Company, 224 <br />U.S. 107 (1912) and its "water wheel doctrine"; no <br />one should be permitted to tie up the whole flow of <br />the stream to facili.tate his taking of a fraction <br />thereof. <br /> <br />4. They further argued that basic problems existed in <br />the State's factual case. Why did declines in net <br />river gain level off following the 1950s, even <br />though well pumping continued to increase? <br />Attachment 8, Mass Diagram of Net River Gain, <br />Conejos and Rio Grande. <br /> <br />5. The models, both the U.S.G.S.' analog model and the <br />State's digital model, may be useful for the predic- <br />tion of general trends and gross generalizations of <br /> <br />-11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.