Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ The mass diagram analysis of the state line flow <br />versus the Canon City flow shows an apparent loss <br />during the 1951-1966 period of approximately <br />105,000 acre feet per year at the stateline. The <br />studies of the canal diversions reveal a decrease <br />of approximately 113,000 acre feet per year during <br />these recent years. At 60 per cent efficiency, <br />the decrease in consumptive use is 68,000 acre feet <br />per year. Thus, the total apparent decrease is <br />173,000 acre feet per year when the depletions and <br />reduced flow at the state line are added. During <br />recent years the average annual amount of water <br />pumped from wells was reported to be 128,700 <br />acrefeet. with the U.S. Geological Survey's <br />estimate of 80 per cent consumptive use, the <br />consumptive use by wells would be 103,000 acre feet <br />per year" Id., p. iii. <br /> <br />./ <br /> <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />I court's "Findings of. Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />j <br /> <br />Decree" in the Water Division No. 2 case styled People of <br /> <br />A third source of common background information is the <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />4 ' <br /> <br />the State of Colorado v. Amity Mutual Irrigation Company and <br /> <br />Buffalo Mutual Irrigation Company, No. W-4764, June 24, <br /> <br />1981. This case resulted from Amity Mutual Irrigation <br />Company refusing to comply with the terms of an order of the <br />Water Commissioner of Colorado Water District No. 67, dated <br />April 1, 1978, directing Amity to make no future diversions <br />except with the approval and under direction of the Colorado <br /> <br />Division Engineer. The Water Commissioner had issued the <br /> <br />order to facilitate the delivery of Compact water to the <br /> <br />state line by instructing both Amity and the Buffalo Mutual <br /> <br />Irrigation Company to cease diversions for a twenty four hour <br /> <br />period during the initial release of conservation water from <br /> <br />John Martin Reservoir. While the Court dismissed the case <br /> <br />on the ground that the Water Commissioner proceeded discrim- <br /> <br />inatorily, in violation of the equal protection clause of <br /> <br />the United States Constitut~on and the due process clause in <br /> <br />-9- <br /> <br />.'"- <br /> <br />'. <br />1 <br /> <br />~ ,;;,. <br />