Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />172i <br /> <br />exceeded and at a rate equal to or less than the reservoir inflow and such release is considered <br /> <br /> <br />passed through the reservoir and not charged to the filling of the Model storage right. <br /> <br /> <br />Reclamation analyzed the Trinidad Reservoir operations and stock water releases on a <br /> <br /> <br />daily basis for water year 1992 with the interpretation of the operating principles presented in the <br /> <br />preceding paragraph. This analysis showed that the total storage including carryover from the <br /> <br />previous year di9 not exceed 20,000 acre feet during anyone day in water year 1992. The <br /> <br /> <br />maximum storage content would have been 19833 acre feet on April 29 and 30th. Neither was <br /> <br />the storage limitation ofa single filling of the Model Storage right of20,000 acre feet in a single <br /> <br /> <br />water year exceeded as the total accumulated storage for water year 1992 was 19155 acre feet. <br /> <br /><Appendix B). <br /> <br />The District Court, Water Division No.2, State of Colorado, Case No. 86CW25 order of <br /> <br />March 15, 1989,"...terminates Hoehne's right under Paragraph 4.d. to divert water during the <br /> <br /> <br />nonirrigation seaSon for stock watering and incidental domestic uses; and the Cqurt orders that <br /> <br /> <br />Hoehne's nonirrigation season stockwater be turned over to the Project water supply to avoid any <br /> <br />possible injurious effect of this order to the plaintiff ditch companies." There is not a definition of <br /> <br />Project water supply in the operating principles. However, if Project water supply is interpreted <br /> <br />to mean the District water supply, it is defined as "...that water supply of the Purgatoire River <br /> <br />subject to District administration for irrigation use within the District irrigable area." This <br /> <br /> <br />interpretation is supported by the sentence of the order of the Court cited above in that <br /> <br />termination of Hoehne's share of the stockwater allowance does not cause injury to the plaintiff <br /> <br />ditches but transfer of this water to the District water reduces the impact of the Court's award of <br /> <br /> <br />5028 acre feet as 95 percent of Hoehne's irrigation requirements compared to the plaintiff ditches' <br /> <br />18 <br />