My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06766
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06766
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:24:17 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:51:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.115.J
Description
Florida Project
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
1/10/1997
Title
Information on the Use of Exisitng Federal Facilities: Florida Project
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.
/
13
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />EXlsnNG FACILmES - FLORIDA PRo.JECT (CONTINUED) <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />In 1996 Florida Project water users received a 70% supply of Project water at the farm <br />turnouts. <br /> <br />23. In light of question 3 above, is it not true that for the Animas - La Plata Project (ALP) <br />proponents to secure a new water supply contract from Lemon Reservoir, existing <br />contracts to deliver water must be voluntarily relinquished? <br /> <br />. Essentially two types of water delivery contracts exist on the Florida Project: <br /> <br />I) The repayment contracts between the District and the United States and the <br />Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the United States. <br /> <br />2) The water petitions between the District and the non-Indian Project water users <br />that assigns a certain amount of the reservoir yield for use by the individual <br />Project water users. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In the case of the contract between the District and the United States, the District has <br />the right to the yield of the reservoir minus certain reservations (i.e. fish and wildlife, <br />Indian water, etc.) and could market Project water to the ALP proponents if the <br />proponent's use of the water met the criteria established in the contract (i.e. irrigation <br />use, within District boundaries, etc.) If the contract criteria could not be met either <br />the contract would need to be amended or the District would have to mutually agree <br />to relinquish a portion of the yield of the reservoir for the United States to market. <br /> <br />. The Tribe's contract reserves them a specific amount of water that can be used by the <br />Tribe for irrigation. <br /> <br />. In the case of the water petitions the District has entered into with the respective <br />Project water users, the water user has the right to use the water (and the amount <br />stipulated) as long as it is put to use for the purpose stated in the petition. Generally <br />speaking, the water user would have to voluntarily relinquish the right to use the water <br />(or portion thereof) for the water to be "marketed" to some other user. This is based <br />on the premise that the current water user is regularly using the full water allotment. <br /> <br />. The District also has the ability to utilize an "involuntary petition" to take water away <br />from a water user if it is determined that the water user is not using the full allotment <br />of water. <br /> <br />* * 1/10/97 - PRI!.uMINARY - SUBJECT To REVISION - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONL.Y '" '" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.