Laserfiche WebLink
Bob Oswald <br />July 22, 2004 <br />Page 2 <br />As I stated in my letter of November 13, 2004, the Dillon's should be receiving another <br />one-third of the "free" water in the near future from Dalton Land and Cattle Co. from whom they <br />acquired the real property and the original one-third of free" water. <br />Finally, I am also enclosing a copy of an a-mail I received yesterday from Mike Fitzgerald, <br />Ecosphere Environmental Services, clarifying his letter to me dated June 28, 2004, a copy of <br />which you have. As you can see from the a-mail, the depletion of consumptive use of water from <br />the pond can vary depending upon climatic and ground conditions from 72-85 to 26.16 acre feet <br />per yeaz. <br />It is the intent of the Dillon's to file an application for an augmentation plan so they can <br />use some of their "free" water that they normally would use for irrigation to return to the river vis <br />a vis the pond, or directly back into the river. <br />Pursuant to the calculations of Wright Water Engineers, the Dillon's would be entitled to <br />3.9 c.f.s. Assuming the most extreme case of net evaporation loss over the course of a year is 72.8 <br />acre feet. If the river were to go on call and Dillon's had to cover that loss, they would have ample <br />water to do so. That is, 1 c.f.s. in a 24 hour period equals 1.983 acre feet. Consequently, they <br />could cover the evaporation loss in approximately 9'/z days or a longer period using less than all <br />of their "free" water. Thus, the Dillon's can cover the evaporation loss without using any of their <br />water (the A or B shares) in the Animas Water Company by relying solely on their "free" water. <br />Further, the use of the water to augment the river would not injure any downstream water users <br />as it would be going back into the river either directly or through the pond. <br />With regazd to Ms. Loe and Ms. O'Brien's letter of July 14, 2004 and their letter of <br />November 10, 2003, I have addressed those issues in my letter of November 13, 2003. These <br />issues were considered by the La Plata County Commissioners in their decision to allow the Map <br />Amendment. Consequently, I do not believe I need to respond any further to their complaints. <br />If you need anything further, please let me know. <br />Very truly yours, <br />rank J. Anti <br />FJA:msk <br />Enclosure <br />cc: Sandco, Inc. <br />