APPCOR10291

• Permit No: C1996084
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Name: LORENCITO CANYON MINE PERMIT REVSION EXHIBIT 8
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• plans tOC 1I1 Cn~.l r0 n11K Ilia[ !ll Ollli0l"iL" :~~tZ 111 [hai `.i 111 it?e,^,SUCe the !mule S R7nlpllallCe Rltil
~.'_1.
.-~, rz~izw of Exhibit IS finds that additional information is ntzded for thz Division to
dztermine whethzr the svzam laid deposits within Lorencito Cam on have am "inhzren[
productivz potential to suppon agricultural activities". Phase provide the minimum size of
stream laid deposits being famlzd in the region that use flood irrigation. Phase provide
~ additional intomlation demons rating that the water from the perennial reaches of Lorencito
~~ Canton is insutliciznt to suppott flood irrigation of a portion of thz Lorencito Cam on
Q ~~ deposits the stze of the smallzst flood-irrigated parcel in the reston. The starement that thz
,~ ~F, "sitz has never de~zlopzd for flood irrigauon~~ (page 16 of Exhibit 18) is unfortunately not
y~'~'~ znough for the Division to base a finding that Lorencito stream laid deposits don~t hacz the
~0`_nV~1 notential for flood irrigation (Section'_.06.8(3)(c) ofthe Board's Regulations).
tT
~s~ Should thz Lorencito deposits be found by the Division to be an .AVF. based on their
porential to be flood-irrigated and famled, an environmen[al monitoring svstz:m. in
accordancz with Sections 3.06.8(4)('aj(vi)gnd 4?4. will need to be developed for this .a VF
as well.
Response
• LCC believes that flood irrigation is not viable in Lorencito Cam~on due to historic range
management practices. and due [o the availability of water along Lorenciro Canyon and
within the .-Arkansas River basin. The Parsons family owned the property for ~8 czars.
from 19=46 through 1994. During that period, they did not find that the expense of filing
for a water right or installing irrigation ditching was cost effective. The Parsons did not
have a water right for [he canyon because the flow and duration of flow was inadequate to
suppon the expense of filing. Table 3 of the Alluvial Valley Floor Investigation. Exhibit
18. documents wet reaches in Lorencito Canyon, and the text describes the nominal flows
observed in 1996.
A review of [he Land Use Map (2.04.3-1) shows flood irrigated parcels along the perennial
Purgatoire. Thev ranee in area from 2.75 to 72.4 acres. with a median size of 1~.6 acres
and an average size of 24 acres. Mr. Kenn Lutz of the Las Animas County MRCS.
indicates that a rancher might choose to irrigate a plot as small as 5 acres with a gravity
flow system. but that [he current unavailability of water rights within the Arkansas River
basin precludes ini[iating such a prat[ice.
Today. the Arkansas River is over-appropriated and filings are complicated by the
Colorado-Kansas Compac[. Mr. Joe Flory, the River Operations iVlana~*er for Distric[ ?.
indicated tha[ water rights more junior than those tiled in 1890 would be ou[ of priority by
thz end of June during a nornlal water yzar. This year. whin summer inflow into Trinidad
Reservoir is anticipa[ed to be l21 ~ of normal (LtSDA, NRC. Colorado Basin Outlook
. Rzport. Ma.' 1. 1997) water rights more junior than those filed on December 14. 1948
would be out of priority by the end of June (Flory. Personal Communication).
2l