Amity and Great Plains reservoirs

Great Plains Capacity 265000 AF - 183000 is unusable dead storage.

2. Storage in the Martin successful.

3.

Article III Water - 35% Kansas T. Loose

1-2 Change of water rights cannot injure other appropriators cannot increase cansumptive use - historical return flows maintains Kansas-Colorado Compact no depletion. Compact Admx transfer upstream compact make findings so river not depleted.

3.

Park at Great Plains must change existing operation. Alternate sources must be obtained. Replace evaporation, maintain quality.

4. Alternatives - 4 Res -

3

Res - 2 Res - 4 Res - 2 Res. 5. No. 4 emphasize irrigation water for state park will require transfer of ag water. Some negative impacts to local economy.

6.

1950-1991 Data used. WWSP not in operation 1976. Assumed WW program existed all the time - (How)

7. Nov. 15 - March 15 water stored in Martin. 55% would be exchanged back to Ft. Lyon headgate for delivery to Great Plains as opportunity arises.

35% to transit loss (WWSP) 10% res evapo ant. Transit loss

8. Remainder of year divert at Ft. Lyon to got GP. Except for exchange consistant with Amity historic use.

9.

Water quality - Great Plains decree because of WWSP Program alternatives 1-2-3-5. Include level pool based on reduction of reservoir releases decrease in irrigated acreage to offset consumptive use are necessary. Would cause change in amount and timing of return flows. Further analysis required.

10. Would have to assume CDOW would be able to accomplish condition necessary to use GP. Decree to maintain other water uses including removal of land from irrigation under Amity. 11. Alternatives 1-2-3 and 5 with level pools. No. 4 operate in historic mode to deliver irrigation water.

12. Alt

3-5

2 Reservoirs

13. Results indicate GP decree sufficient to satisfy water quality. Have to draw out water quality but not historical irrigation releases.

Boyle Report (continued)

14. Alt 1-2-3-5 for level pool may require change of water from irrigation to nonirrigation to maintain consumptive use of GP res.

15. Alt 4 does not require change of use or decrease ag water. 1977 water necessary 1-5 range from 17,900 to 25,600. Evapo on 4200 A. 7 feet 28,000. Would have to divert 28,100 and 41,000 AF year from Arkansas River at Ft. Lyon Headgate before canal losses. (Identify)

16. Kansas Transit Loss 7,500 to 10,400.

17. Historical return flows amount and timing of water would require further analysis. Preliminary 0-2,500 AF of water to prevent injury to others.

18. From 0-8,500 acres reduction in irrigated land (Damn close - Bull)

19. Costs $1.5 million to $15 million additional costs to have GP decree.

20. Uncertainties associated with value of GP decree and amount of water required to prevent injury to existing water rights.

21. Regional economy analysis of impact. Alt No. 4 operate in historic mode without level pool. Alt 1-2-3-5 assume equal rec. (reation???._ stabalized water levels using ag water. 22. Study on major water and storage facilities on North Side of River 20 miles upstream of La Junta to Kansas Line. Studies included Ft. Lyon Canal, Great Plains, Amity Canal and John Martin. Ft. Lyon deliver water to Kicking Bird to Great Plains (in priority). Great Plains, Amity, John Martin operated by Army Engineers. Ft. Lyon by stockholders.

23. 1980 account system developed Amity, Ft. Lyon and consolidated storage in Martin 35% storage charge.

24. Amity 39,000 acres, used to be 34,000. Decrees 283.5 CFS - 2/21/1887 500 CFS - 4/1 /1893 Ft. Lyon Decrees: 4/1 5/1884 - 164.64 CFS 3/1/1887 - 597.16 CFS 8/31/1893 - 171.20 CFS 171 after Amity 500 4/10/93 Bessemer: 5/1/1887 - 322 CFS

-2-West Pueblo: 12/17/1887 - 1,5tm CFS High Line: 1/6/1 890 - 378 CFS Catlin: 11/1 4/1887 - 97 CFS Holbrook: 9/25/1889 - 155 CFS Lamar: 2/21/1887 - 72.09 CFS 5/10/1887 - 13.64 CFS

Great Plains 265.552 AF 8/1 /1896 delivered by Ft. Lyon Canal to Kicking Bird Canal in priority of 8/1/1896. Not just anytime I suggest. Water in 1896 has to be flood stage.

25. Wells under amity supplemental supply. Have to be addressed.

26. Storage in Martin more efficient 25% GP 45% - 50% Martin. 27. Ft. Lyon Canal has to carry 1,800 CFS in western division.

28. First 5,483 AF each storage season goes to Ft. Lyon. 5,483 measured at Ft. Lyon Headgate.

29. 1977 Amity store ini Martin. 1980 account system. 30. Amity pro rata share evapo Martin.

31. Amity transit loss 1-2% from Martin to headgate.

32. 1884 Amity allowed to store 50,000 AF in Martin. Limited 880 CFS (March 15 - Nov. 15th) WW at Las Animas-La Junta Gauge does not include transit loss.

33. John Martin more efficient than GP. (Double) Reservoir irrigation efficiencies different than recreation efficiencies. No attempt to define reservoir multi use.

34. Irrigation efficiency at Great Plains 25%. Longer storage has to be less more evapo - seep.

35.

Martin 45% maybe 50% assumption of reservoir spills. 36. Combined efficiency Martin and

GP ,37%.

37. Format 1 thru 6 No. 5 water quality.

-3-Boyle Report (continued) 38. Basic Data:

1. Bibliography

2. GP area versus capacity data 3. Climate

4. Diversion storage data 5. Seep loss data

6. Water rights 7. Ag statistics

8. soils marginal lands 39. GP evapo - dead storage

40. Pan evapo Martin level 84"-86" x .70 Gotta be more shallow lakes.

41. Other water right than Amity whose? Cost to other decrees in court action.

42. 1950-1985 used for potential other suppliers.

43. Seepage losses estimated best long term averages. Actual losses may vary.

44. Estimated 1950-1991 26,380 AF take out a few big years. What do you have.

45. GP available 183,360. Unavailable 8?,392-4- Dead storage. 46. Table 3.4. How many decrees being used? How used?

47. Ag statistics. 48. Marginal land.

49. Table 3.5 marginal land from 1% to 22%. Whoes right? 50. Fair value market for water $600 to $3,000.

51. Amity perferred.

52. Amity $78 per acre after costs. Crops Amity direct flow 84,400 AF - 1950-1991 direct flow.

53. Efficiency 51%.

54. Transferrable poor farms $30, "Good Farms" $90. Range from $330 to $990.

55. Land values Amity currently $400 A marginal, $1,000 A prime land, dryland $100 - $150, prime dryland $250-$300. 56. Ag land under Amity $800 per acte with water, $70 per acre without.

-14-57. Acre foot of transferrable water at $600. 58. Amity price about $3,000 a share.

59. Cheaper to acquire Amity land with water than acquire water.

60. Annual transferrable yield 1.24 AF. 61. cost would be 2420 per AF.

62. DOW has offers of $500 AF to $1,000.

63. Leasing. $30 to $50 annual costs $40 to $100 AF.

64. Share acquisitions land values 300 to 800 AF transferable.

65. Proxy acquitiions 6,500 shares at 1.24 AF transferable. 51% of stock controling interest to control company.

66. Dedicate almost half of Amity total use of water to supply for that use and prohibit future sales and transfers. 67. Cost of proxy rights could equal value of out right purchase.

68. Other sources - no reason Amity most cost effective. 69. If could not deal with Amity. Other rights alternative. 70. Fair market value - who pays costs of remaining shareholders and other appropriators on river.

71. Crop budget $78 per acre after expenses. Since when does the expense not become a part of the economy.

72. J. Martin efficiency 51% 43,000A potential transferable water.

73. 1.1 acre feet of consumptive use.

74. Budget approach potential transferable water $54 amounts to interest ratio 8.5% 30 years $600. 45,100 AF potential from 39,000 acres.

75. Return flows vary transferable low at $30 poor farms -$90 or higher good farms. From $330 to $990 (shares or net water)

76. Land value approach. $400 to $1,000 per acre are well included in estimate.

-5-., ..

Boyle Report (continued)

77. Dryland values - $100 to $150. $250 to 300 prime dryland.

78. Amity land average - $800 per acre with water. $200 acre dry land.

79. 1 AF Amity of transferable water at 600. Annual payment of $5,500.

80. 43,100 AF transferable - 34,700 outstanding Amity shares. Each share 1.24 AF at $3,000 share. Acquisition cost $2,420 AF.

81. Cheaper to acquire land.

82. Leasing - value of water to irrigators annual cost from $40 to $100 per AF.

83. Share acquisitions - transferable AF app. $600. From $300 to $800 per a.

84. Explain transferable water in detail.

85. Incentive purchase price $400 to $900 per transferable share.

86.

Proxy rights - purchase 51% proxies to control company. 87. 51% of

34,662

shares is

17,678

shares.

88.

In operation of GR for recreation could permanently dedicate almost 1/2 of Amity total supply. Prohibiting future sales and transfers of that water.

89. Other water - $500 to $1,000 - slightly higher than Amity.

90. Multi purpose - reck and ag.

91. Reservoir seepage may be ignored in this study. Surface run off into reservoir not large semi arid climate.

92. Mass balance - no chemical reaction. Does not consider possible. Chemical reaction and description of salts.

93.

Simulations -

5-3

diversion at Ft. Lyon Headgate adjusted to Article III water. Simulated runs.

94. Evaporation occurs when water can be released. Modified management.

95. Net evapo has to be more than J. Martin (me). Shallow water pan evapo at Martin 84"-86" inches. Use 70% will not be accurate. Should require weather station at GP.

6

-Boyle Report (continued)

96. Water quality - TDS evapo at surface tends to concentrate dissolved solids. Ocean water 31,00 resolved solids.

97. GPSIM Model assumes complete by mixed waters. 94A. Simulated management.

95A. Inflow Article III water allows split at Ft. Lyon Headgate of water Martin or G. Plains.

96A. Explain page. 5-6

97A. Storage limits: Max - minimum. Minimum no releases. Max - spills or redirect. 5-7

98. Effect on (bird crap) quality.

5-8

99.

Residual effect.

100. Potential supplies: 1. Amity

2. Lease Amity

3. Interuplible supplies 4. Other water rights.

5. Lease of other water rights. 6. Dam efficiency

(How keep river whole)

100A. Yield and costs 1950-1985. Water yields estimated.

-7-Duplicate pages

not scanned

See originals in folder

Water Resources Archive

..r

- 2 -72 72

0

c7.="7.3-73

- 30

ii2Z 0/

SO-7

1 7 ,

1w

g

BOYLE REPORT

Great Plains Capacity 265000 AF - 183000 is unusable dead storage.

2. Storage in the Martin successful.

3. Article III Water - 35% Kansas T. torlos.e

1-2 Change of water rights cannot injure other appropriators cannot increase cansumptive use - historical return flows maintains Kansas-Colorado Compact no depletion. Compact Admx transfer upstream compact make findings so river not depleted. 3. Park at Great Plains must change existing operation. Alternate sources must be obtained. Replace evaporation, maintain quality.

4. Alternatives - 4 Res - 3 Res - 2 Res - 4 Res - 2 Res. 5. No. 4 emphasize irrigation water for state park will require transfer of ag water. Some negative impacts to local economy.

6. 1950-1991 Data used. WWSP not in operation 1976. Assumed WW program existed all the time - (How)

1

7. Nov. 15 - March 15 water stored in Martin.

55%

would be 66011/TgA exchanged back to Ft. Lyon headgate for delivery to Great

G)

ot. r4-8

Plains as opportunity arises. 35% to transit loss (WWSP)

65d20

Eyiqt"-2-

10% res evapo ant. Transit loss t-t,. S 4' -__,

10

T

°

8. Remainder of year divert at Ft. Lyon to feet- GP. Except

for exchange consistant with Amity historic use. CtA *Cr --"Xcli- 4(--k-711-4 h IT

1

cchoi-4-1— L-ti t ii,

r_-

/-K

9. Water quality - Great Plains decree because of WWSP &\•1 0112.

r.r6it

,

Program alternatives 1-2-3-5. Include level pool based on reduction of reservoir releases decrease in irrzal,d acreage to offsp_aaumptive use are necessary. Would cause change gV

in amount and timing of return flows. --Further analysis required.

-10. Would have to assume CDOW would be able to accomplish condition necessaryrto use GP. Decree to maintain other water uses including removal of land from irrigation under Amity.

11 (-170a/414/

11. Alternatives 1-2-3 and 5 with level pools. No. 4 operate in historic mode to deliver irrigation water.

7"

12. Alt 3-5 2 Reservoirs FlPel

13. Results indicate GP decree sufficient to satisfy water evaaafeT74/ 6,7' quality. Have to draw out water quality but not historical

/ 171:r

D

i/

614;ilvd)461'' (f

prevent injury to others.

14. Alt 1-2-3-5 for level pool may require change of water from irrigation to nonirrigation to maintain consumptive use of GP res.

15. Alt 4 does not require change of use or decrease ag water. 1977 water necessary 1-5 range from 17,900 to 25,600. Evapo on 4200 A. 7 feet 28,000. Would have to divert 28,100 and 41,000 AF year from Arkansas River at Ft. Lyon Headgate

before canal losses. (Identify)

16. Kansas Transit Loss 7,500 to 10,400.

17. Historical return flows amount and timing of water would require filntlie_r_QEllysis. Preliminary 0-2,500 AF of water to

-18. From 0-8,500 acres reduction in irrigated land (Damn close - Bull)

19. Costs $1.5 million to $15 million additional costs to have GP decree.

20. Uncertainties associated with value of GP decree and amount of water required to prevent injury to existing water rights.

21. Regional economy analysis of impact. Alt No. 4 operate in historic mode without level pool. Alt 1-2-3-5 assume equal rec. (reation???_ stabalized water levels using ag water. 22. Study on major water and storage facilities on North Side of River 20 miles upstream of La Junta to Kansas Line. Studies included Ft. Lyon Canal, Great Plains, Amity Canal and John Martin. Ft. Lyon deliver water to Kicking Bird to Great Plains (in priority). Great Plains, Amity, John Martin operated by Army Engineers. Ft. Lyon by stockholders.

23. 1980 account system developed Amity, Ft. Lyon and consolidated storage in Martin 35% storage charge.

24. Amity 39,000 acres, used to be 34,000. Decrees 283.5 CFS - 2/21 /1 887 500 CFS - 4/1 /1893 611) c.o Ft. Lyon Decrees: 4/1 5/1884 - 164.64 CFS 3/1/1887 - 597.16 CFS 8/31/1893 - 171.20 CFS 171 after Amity 500 4/1 0/93 Bessemer: 5/1/1887 - 322 CFS Pr

-2-Boyle Report (continued) West Pueblo: 1 2/1 7/1887 - 1c54f, CFS High Line: 1/6/1890 - 378 CFS Catlin: 11/1 4/1 887 - 97 CFS Holbrook: 9/25/1 889 - 155 CFS Lamar: 2/21/1887 - 72.09 CFS 5/10/1887 - 13.64 CFS

Great Plains 265.552 AF 8/1/1896 delivered by Ft. Lyon Canal to Kicking Bird Canal in priority of 8/1/1896. Not just anytime I suggest. Water in 1896 has to be flood stage.

25. Wells under Anity supplemental supply. Have to be addressed.

26. Storage in Martin more efficient 25% GP 45% - 50% Martin. 27. Ft. Lyon Canal has to carry 1,800 CFS in western division.

28. First 5,483 AF each storage season goes to Ft. Lyon. 5,483 measured at Ft. Lyon Headgate.

29. 1977 Amity store in/ Martin. 1980 account system. _

30. Amity pro rata share evapo Martin.

31. Amity transit loss 1-2% from Martin to headgate4WC4r-il q/ 32. 1884 Amity allowed to store 50,000 AF in Martin. Limited 880 CFS (March 15 - Nov. 15th) •WW at Las Animas-La Junta Gauge does not include transit loss.

33.

John Martin more efficient than GP. (Double) Reservoir irrigation efficiencies different than Engation efficiencies. No attempt to define reservoir multi use.

34. Irrigation efficiency at Great Plains 25%. Longer storage has to be less more evapo - seep.

35.

Martin 45% maybe 50% assumption of reservoir spills. 36. Combined efficiency Martin and GP 37%.

37.

Format 1 thru

6

No.

5

water quality.

-3-k3G

38. dole Data:

1. Bibliography

2. GP area versus capacity data 3. Climate

4. Diversion storage data 5. Seep loss data

6. Water rights 7. Ag statistics ; marginal lands • A storage

erm

in level 84'1-86" x .70 Gotta be more

ight than Amity whose? Cost to other tion.

for potential other suppliers.

estimated best long term averages. Actual

26,380 AF take out a few big years.

Ur dVcilldUlt 183,360. Unavailable 82,192. Dead storage.

46. Table 3.4. How many decrees being used? How used?

nal land from 1% to 22%. Whoes right? et for water $600 to $3,000.

Lore after costs. Crops Amity direct flow H direct flow.

poor farms $30, "Good Farms" $90. Range

55. Land values Amity currently $1400 A marginal, $1,000 A prime land, dryland $100 - $150, prime dryland $250-$300.

e_dif

56. Ag land under Amity $800 per art Z with water, $70 per acre without.

1.1(21# r &I6 k v1L

iff0C4

Boyle Report (continued) 38. kpic Data:

1. Bibliography

2. GP area versus capacity data 3. Climate

4. Diversion storage data 5. Seep loss data

6. Water rights -- ky114,404-7. Ag statistics

8. soils marginal lands 39. GP evapo - dead storage

Guil,erm

40. Pan evapo Martin level 84"-86" x .70 Gotta be more shallow lakes.

41. Other water right than Amity whose? Cost to other decrees in court action.

42. 1950-1985 used for potential other suppliers.

43. Seepage losses estimated best long term averages. Actual losses may vary.

44. Estimated 1950-1991 26,380 AF take out a few big years. What do you have.

45. GP available 183,360. Unavailable 82,192. Dead storage. 46. Table 3.4. How many decrees being used? How used?

47. Ag statistics. 48. Marginal land.

49. Table 3.5 marginal land from 1% to 22%. Whoes right? 50. Fair value market for water $600 to $3,000.

51. Amity perferred.

52. Amity $78 per acre after costs. Crops Amity direct flow 84,400 AF - 1950-1991 direct flow.

53. Efficiency 51%.

54. Transferrable poor farms $30, "Good Farms" $90. Range from $330 to $990.

55. Land values Amity currently $400 A marginal, $1,000 A prime land, dryland $100 - $150, prime dryland $250-$300. 56. Ag land under Amity $800 per acte with water, $70 per acre without.

-14-57. Acre foot of transferrable water at $600. 58. Amity price about $3,000 a share.

59. Cheaper to acquire Amity land with water than acquire water.

60. Annual transferrable yield 1.24 AF. p'11

3

‘I P

61. cost would be 2420 per AF.

62. DOW has offers of $500 AF to $1,000.

63. Leasing. $30 to $50 annual costs $40 to $100 AF.

64. Share acquisitions land values 300 to 800 AF transferable.

65. Proxy acquitiions 6,500 shares at 1.24 AF transferable. 51% of stock controling interest to control company.

66. Dedicate almost half of Amity total use of water to supply for that use and prohibit future sales and transfers. 67. Cost of proxy rights could equal value of out right purchase.

68. Other sources - no reason Amity most cost effective. 69. If could not deal with Amity. Other rights alternative. 70. Fair market value - who pays costs of remaining shareholders and other appropriators on river.

71. Crop budget $78 per acre after expenses. Since when does the expense not become a part of the economy.

72. J. Martin efficiency 51% 43,000A potential transferable water.

67)

-

/

5,

r Fi< A-F

73. 1.1 acre feet of consumptive use.

74. Budget approach potential transferable water $54 amounts to interest ratio 8.5% 30 years $600. 45,100 AF potential from 39,000 acres.

75. Return flows vary transferable low at $30 poor farms -$90 or higher good farms. From $330 to $990 (shares or net water)

76. Land value approach. $400 to $1,000 per acre are wells: included in estimate.

-5-1-e

6

Boyle Report (continued)

77. Dryland values $100 to $150. $250 to 300 prime dry land.

78. Amity land average - $800 per acre with water. $200 acre dry land.

79. 1 AF Amity of transferable water at 600. Annual payment of $5,500.

80. 43,100 AF transferable - 34,700 outstanding Amity shares. Each share 1.24 AF at $3,000 share. Acquisition cost $2,420 AF.

fl ") OC (A, 14. 4;11/ 71-- Cc, 1"

81. Cheaper to acquire land.

La-5

01,

82. Leasing - value of water to irrigators annual cost from $40 to $100 per AF.

83. Share acquisitions - transferable AF app. $600. From $300 to $800 per a.

84. Explain transferable water in detail.

85. Incentive purchase price $400 to $900 per transferable share.

86. Proxy rights - purchase 51% proxies to control company. 87. 51% of 34,662 shares is 17,678 shares.

88. In operation of GR for recreation could permanently dedicate almost 1/2 of Amity total supply. Prohibiting future sales and transfers of that water.

89. Other water - $500 to $1,000 - slightly higher than Amity.

90. Multi purpose - reek and ag.

91. Reservoir seepage may be ignored in this study. Surface run off into reservoir not large semi arid climate.

92. Mass balance - no chemical reaction. Does not consider possible. Chemical reaction and description of salts.

93. Simulations - 5-3 diversion at Ft. Lyon Headgate adjusted to Article III water. Simulated runs.

94. Evaporation occurs when water can be released. Modified management.

95. Net evapo has to be more than J. Martin (me). Shallow water pan evapo at Martin 84"-86" inches. Use 70% will not be accurate. Should require weather station at GP.

-6-Boyle Report (continued)

96. Water quality - TDS evapo at surface tends to concentrate dissolved solids. Ocean water 31,00 resolved solids.

97.

GPSIM Model assumes complete by mixed waters. 94A. Simulated management.

95A. Inflow Article III water allows split at Ft. Lyon Headgate of water Martin or G. Plains.

96A. Explain page. 5-6

97A. Storage limits: Max - minimum. Minimum no releases. Max - spills or redirect. 5-7

98. Effect on (bird crap) quality. 5-8

99.

Residual effect.

100. Potential supplies: 1. Amity

2. Lease Amity

3.

Interuplible supplies 4. Other water rights.

5. Lease of other water rights.

6.

Dam efficiency

(How keep river whole)

100A. Yield and costs 1950-1985. Water yields estimated.

-7-Duplicate pages

not scanned

See originals in folder

Water Resources Archive

A:GRTPLAIN.WWW, February 15, 1993

The Winter Water Storage Program (WWSP) was decreed from a

voluntary agreement between ditches having direct application or storage diversion points located between Pueblo Reservoir and John Martin Reservoir, with the exception of Rocky Ford Canal which opted not to participate. Amity's Great Plains storage Was

decreed for irrigation of lands under the Amity Canal and had it's diversion point at the headgate of Ft. Lyon Canal which allowed Amity to participate in the WWSP.

The Amity obtained an alternate point of storage in John Martin Reservoir to obtain more efficient use of the Great Plains water for irrigation. Whether in the course of its storage in the Great Plains or John Martin and later use fof irrigation, the water has a decreed use by Amity for irrigation of lands lying under it's canal. As is the case of all water in storage, there is an incidental use for fishing and recreation.

The "Engineering Hydrology Study Of The Great Plains Reservoirs" prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation on behalf of the

Colorado Division of Wildlife now proposed to change the use of Great Plains water to recreation use. The report further propos-es that water excpropos-ess to the needs for recreation be dpropos-esignated for use by Amity for irrigation.

Some of Amity's water, based upon the Great Plains decree is now stored subject to terms and conditions of the WWSP. One of the concerns of participants in the WWSP was that water stored under the WWSP might become a marketable commodity separate and apart from original decrees. To avoid this possibility, all agreed to the language found in paragraph "W" of.the decree issued by Water Court November 10, 1987, i.e. "W. Under this proposed change, exchange and substitution no changes of use are requested. Each applicant will retain its own decreed purpose of use. Each

applicant recognizes that water stored pursuant to this applica-tion is a part of each applicant's historic year round water supply and agrees that any future change of purpose or use is subject to proof of historic consumptive use, year round river depletions, and conditions to prevent injury under C.R.S.

37-92-Amity's decision to store some of the water to which it is entitled under the Great Plains decree in John Martin caused a reduction in storage content in the Great Plains. The Boyle

Study suggests transfer of Great Plains Winter Water stored under the WWSP in John Martin Reservoir by exchange to the Great Plains Reservoirs for recreation use and subsequently to a decreed use by Amity for irrigation of lands lying under it's canal. It

further proposes to remove from irrigation some acreage under the Amity for increased consumptive use by the reservoirs. The

1. WWSP water is a part of Amity's historic year round water supply. Transfer of that portion represented by the WWSP to another use should result in a pro-rata reduction of irrigated acreage. Only the consumptive use portion of the WWSP water should be transferrable and provision should be made for continuation of his-toric patterns of return flows from dried-up acreage. Boyle Engineering estimates 21,700 a.f. from the WWSP vs. actual 30,741 average storage in the 9 years fol-lowing agreement as to percentage of participation in the WWSP. Based upon Boyle's figures 26% of Amity lands should be dried up. Based upon the recent 9 years water production 29% of Amity lands should be dried up to transfer it's WWSP water to another use. 2. If there is a change in the decreed purpose of use

would the following requirements of WWSP satisfied? a) Is there sufficient proof of historic consumptive

use?

b) Would there be year round river depletions?

c) What conditions may be imposed to prevent injury? 3. If there is a change of Amity's historic year round

water supply, or Great Plains' decreed purpose of use, may the exchange be made between reservoirs, or must it be made at the headgate of the Amity Canal to maintain historic return flow patterns?

4. At the conclusion of a winter storage season, may a WWSP participant exchange between reservoirs the amount stored, less any storage charges?

5. What is the difference in amount of entitlement, if any, under WWSP for diversion at the Ft. Lyon headgate rather than at John Martin Reservoir, i.e. transporta-tion loss now paid by all entities other than Ft_ Lynn_ 6. What would be the effect of an exchange upstream on (1)

intervening and upstream direct flow priorities, (2) John Martin Conservation Pool, (3) other ditches below John Martin Reservoir and (4) Kansas entitlement.

7. To what extent would evaporation be increased in Great Plains reservoirs by the proposed plan?

8. What injury would be sustained by any of the AVDA members through operation of the proposed plan?

9_ What has been the historic delivery capacity of the Ft. Lyon and Satanta canals for the Great Plains decree.

_36(

10. On page 7-5 (Table 7.1) why is evaporation shown for Alternative 1 as 16,500 a.f. when the average surface area is shown as 4,200 acres which multiplied by a 5.12 lake evaporation factor would result in 21,504 a.f. of evaporation.

11. Please note that Table 6.1 on page 6-3 shows Gross Yield of Great Plains Rights as 47.379 and Direct Flow Rights as 69,425 a.f. The two would total 116,804 a.f. average yield per year. Is this correct?

12. The plan proposes storage of Amity WWSP water in John Martin, with payment of 35% Kansas Transit Loss Account charge, rather than delivery of WWSP water at the Ft. Lyon headgate. If the entire net Amity WWSP storage would be available for exchange upstream, the yield at great plains would be only 35% of the Amity's WWSP water, i.e. 1.00 * 65% (storage KTLA) * 64% (1.00 -transit loss in Ft. Lyon, Satanta, etc.). It appears that the proposal to continue storage in John Martin would only be to obtain Compact premission for transfer of Amity water upstream of John Martin.

l'acje-5:4

404.ivr

transferred

through

water court to uses

suitable to the DOW.

f.

Amity Ditch:

There are sveral alternatives associated with

the

water rights

of this company for daaling

with water needs for John Martin and the

Grudt Plains Ruurvoir:;.

In

this reupect,

a full

evaluation of the applicability of this water

to the John Martin facility would be bettur

served once the hydrology

evaluation currently in process

is completed.

Comparison of Alternatives

/

•t0

JOHN MARTIN kELSERVOM PERMANENT

POOL

WATER

v

OPTIONS

SUPPLfr

DITCH NAME LAS ANIMAGY CONSOLIDATED

,

HIGHLAND DITCH

a

AMITY DITCH

4

KEESEB DITCH PUEBLO WEST FORT BENT DITCH Drrc II 4Acrr-feet (AF) AvAtable 12,500 4064 to 5080 59574 292.5 2000 to 4000 1828 CA) S tJAF — $2000 51015 to $812 . $1950 $2300 555 5975 ' Total Cut 525

minion

54.12.5 millioa 5115 million $27.3 million S1.l-2.2 million

$1.782-million Tcrms perpcmal perpetual perpetual perpetual 10 yc..ars perpetu

4 lIcrcent of Interest in Ditch 75% 75% 100% 100 iIa 33% Watcr Claurt Requirekl maybe _Yes

_yc

_yc

_no

Otlic.r Intcfc.lt Involved 5 macs of River

/3.

STATE OF

_COLORADO

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE IiIRECTOR

Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 718 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3311 FAX: (303) 866-2115

August 6, 1993

Dear Shareholders of the Amity Mutual Irrigation Company:

Roy Romer Governor Ker. Salazar Executive Director Ron Cattany Deputy Director

Over the last several years, we have worked hard with the residents of Southeastern Colorado to begin establishing a premier recreational area for that part of the state. _{We have done so} because we share Southeastern Colorado's interest in sustaining healthy and viable communities in rural Colorado. A premier recreational area at the Great Plains Reservoirs would provide opportunities to the residents of Southeastern Colorado for their enjoyment, and also would attract visitors from throughout the state to boost the local economy.

Indeed, as our commitment to this partnership, we had requested and received authorization from the General Assembly to spend up to $5 million to begin this multimillion dollar project in Southeastern Colorado.

At this point, I believe that our effort in Southeastern Colorado is in jeopardy. If we cannot resolve the current issue of simply moving a small amount of water into the Great Plains Reservoirs to preserve the fish and wildlife values at Nee Noshe, I am not optimistic that we can resolve other issues that we will face in connection with the establishment of the recreational and wildlife area at the Great Plains Reservoirs. I am fully aware of the fact that other locations within Southeast Colorado, including John Martin Reservoir, might be available for us to use in the creation of a state park. I also am fully aware that Las Animas County and Trinidad, Colorado have made requests for assistance in obtaining water to support the existing state park investment at Trinidad Reservoir. _{Indeed, we could use the money now allocated to the} Great Plains Reservoirs to began the water acquisition effort for the park at Trinidad.

However, given the fact that the local community in Southeastern Colorado, Governor Romer, the General Assembly, and the Department of Natural Resources and its Divisions have invested so much in designing the first phases of the plan for the Great Plains Reservoirs, I believe that we should make an effort to continue with our present plan. _{Therefore, I am asking you, the Amity} shareholders, to hold an emergency meeting of the stockholders to allow the Division of Wildlife to transfer water currently held in storage into the Great Plains Reservoirs. _{If we are able to}

Geological Survey • _{Board of Land Commissioners •}

Division of Minerals & Geology Oil & Gas Conservation Commission • _{Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation •}

Soil Conservation Board Water Conservation Board • Division of Water Resources • Division of Wildlife

Amity Mutual Irrigation Company August 6, 1993

Page 2

succeed in this first step, we will make progress in preserving the fish and wildlife values of the reservoir system this year and in developing the recreational program outlined in the plan of the Lower Arkansas River Commission.

I also want to correct some erroneous information that may have led to your decision to stop the Division of Wildlife from moving the water purchased from Colorado Springs into the Great Plains Reservoirs. The clarifications are as follows:

First, the proposal outlined for your board's consideration carried no long term commitment or obligation on the part of the Amity or its shareholders. You were to be given the water at the Amity headgate for delivery to Nee Noshe Reservoir at no cost to the Company. The state agreed to re-construct the conveyance canal to accommodate this water as well as Amity's decreed amount in the event you came into priority. No obligation or liability was to be incurred by Amity for this effort. The Amity was to benefit by having a more efficient -delivery system and by having the unavailable storage in Nee Noshe full in the event the Great Plains decree came into priority after your John Martin alternate storage was full. Wildlife would have benefitted by relieving the stress on the fish resources, allowing them to go into the winter in good condition and hopefully preventing a winter-kill situation from occurring.

Second, the state has not outlined any specifics on how to proceed in acquiring the water needed for permanent preservation of fish, wildlife, and recreational values of this reservoir system. Any comments you have heard to the contrary are not true. The state has discussed several options during the course of developing the Lower Arkansas River Commission Plan, but has made very clear that no commitment would be made without first quantifying the amount of water needed and completing appraisals on lands and waters under the Amity system. That is how we intend to proceed if we carry forward with this effort.

Third, there is no tie between the proposal for purchasing water for Nee Noshe this year and the effort to develop a permanent solution. Likewise, there should be no negative influence on the value of your lands and water by allowing storage of foreign water in Nee Noshe this year. The amount of water in any of the reservoirs will in no way influence the amount of water the state will acquire to provide a permanent source for the reservoirs. Appraised values are based on available markets and past performances, not on any one event.

Fourth, the timetable outlined in the handout provided those of you who attended the Shareholder/Division of Wildlife meeting at

August 6, 1993 Page 3

Hartman on July 19, 1993 summarizes the format the state will follow in developing commitments and water purchases to fulfill our needs. A copy of that handout is attached. Critical to proceeding in a timely manner is the need to have some assurance that we are moving in a direction that fulfills the needs of the resource and is acceptable to the Amity Mutual Irrigation Company. As was explained on July 19th, an agreement with the Company on the operation of the reservoirs has to be in place before we proceed to acquire individual shares to accommodate resource needs. It was our intent to begin development of an Operation Contract with the Amity Board this fall and winter for your individual review and input prior to your annual meeting.

To facilitate continuation of this project, Ron Desilet of the Division of Wildlife will be available to meet with your board at their next scheduled meeting to explain the State's position in light of your recent action. He will be receptive to any suggestions you have in securing the assurances we seek and will serve as liaison and chief negotiator for the State on this project. If you have any questions or concerns, please address them to Ron Desilet at (719) 473-2945.

Sincerely, Ken Salazar Executive Director attachments cc: Members, LARC Governor Romer

08/03/93 10:29 001

Time Frame:

July 93 - January 94

- Stabilize Nee Noshe at or near "0" gauge

- Initiate contracts to provide Quantification/ Appraisals

- Meet with Amity Board to begin development of Operation Contract

- Develop funding plan process January 94 - July 94

- Develop, newsletter for shareholders to provide status report

- Prepare first draft of Amity Operation Contract - Initiate contracts with funding cooperators July 94 - January 95

- Prepare 2nd draft of Amity Operations Contract - Replace evaporation against existing pools in Nee

Gronda and Nee Noshe

- Develop conditions, options, and parameters for RFP's

January 95 - July 95

- Final Amity Operations Contract available - Review Quantification/Appraisal Report

- Develop RFP process/advertise for bids/proposals - Develop funding commitments

- First draft conveyance contract July 95 - July 96

- Review proposals

- Develop individual purchase contracts - Develop funding contracts

- Develop conveyance contracts (final) July 96 - July 97

- Solicit Judicial/Administrative Approvals July 97- July 98

Roy Romer,

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF

WILDLIFE

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Perry D. Olson, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192

Southeast Regional Office 2126 North Weber

Colorado Springs, Co 80907 Telephone: (719) 473-2945

July 12, 1993

Dear Amity Shareholders:

The Division of Wildlife will be hosting an information meeting for all Amity Shareholders at the Hartman Annex, in Hartman, Colorado on Monday July 19, 1993 from 1:30 to 3:30.

The purpose of the meeting is to present information regarding the Division of Wildlife's process for developing water for the Great Plains Reservoir pursuant to the Plan developed by the Lower Arkansas River Commission and approved by the Governor, General Assembly, and Wildlife Commission in May of this year.

Specifically, the meeting will provide an opportunity for the Shareholders to hear and ask questions relative to what has transpired to this point in time; what needs to occur in the future; what procedures will be followed to meet the goals of the Commission Plan; the time frame and deadlines for completing specific activities, and how the shareholders and the Amity will be impacted and will participate in the process.

Hopefully, this meeting will alleviate any misconceptions, rumors and misinformation that may currently exist as well as provide answers to questions that many of you may have.

Sin rely,

Ronald P. Desilet

Southeast Regional Manager

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Kenneth Salazar. Executive Director

WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg. Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Felix Chavez, Member • Rebecca L. Frank. Men-P,-Louis F. Swift, Secretary • George VanDenBerg, Chairman • Arnold Salazar. Member • Thomas M. Eve, Vice Chairman

4.1 CHARLES J BEISE ROYAL C. RUBRIGHT GEORGE C. KEELY MARY E. BRICKNER CHARLES E. MATHESON PETER F. BREITENSTEIN CHARLTON H. CARPENTER PATRICK F. KENNEY BRUCE B JOHNSON HOWARD HOLME JAMES L STONE MICHAEL M. McKINSTRY WILLIAM R. NEFF

FAIRFIELD AND WOODS

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1600 COLORADO NATIONAL BUILDING

950 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202

TELEPHONE 1303) 534-6135

March 2, 1982

Board of Directors

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District

Gentlemen:

Re: Amity Mutual Irrigation Company: Status Report GOLDING FAIRFIELD 11886 .9721 JAMES A. WOODS (18913•197.31 .JAC K. SPERLING KEVIN B. PRATT DANIEL R. FROST DARRELL G WAAS MARY JO GROSS ROBERT A.HOLMES ROBERT C. FISHER,JR. JOHN u. SILVER JOAN E. sommERFELD ROCCO A.DOOSON THOMAS P. 'EARNS

Amity has applied to change the place of storage of 50,000 acre-feet from Great Plains Reservoirs to John Martin. Amity is decreed a 1,150 c.f.s. diversion rate at the Fort Lyon headgate. The change could reduce evaporation and improve management, and we proposed to Amity the attached proposed stipulation for set-tlement last summer.

Trial begins April 20, 1982. Other objectors include Fort Lyon, Catlin, Public Service Company, and Colorado Canal.

Kevin Pratt attended the settlement conference on the case February 22, 1982. At the settlement conference, the Catlin agreed to settlement based on the stipulation we have proposed, deleting the last paragraph and adding a restriction limiting the storage rate in John Martin to 900 c.f.s., the approximate physical capacity of the Kickingbird. After additional study of the attached diversion records, we believe that the Catlin settlement (and our previous proposed stipulation) is insuffi-cient to protect the river as a whole.

After conferring with Tommy and Mr. Beise, we are telling Mr. Shinn by this letter that until we get additional Board guidance, we must withdraw our previous settlement proposal.

While Amity has decrees for 1,150 c.f.s. (900 at the Kick-ingbird headgate), the five highest yield winters averaged 240 c.f.s. flow. While Amity has Great Plains decrees for 265,553 acre-feet of storage, 183,361 acre-feet of it being usable, the most usable water ever reported stored is 130,000 acre-feet.

Board of Directors March 2, 1982

Page Two

Because the 900 c.f.s. now requested could supply 55,000 acre-feet per month, it appears that restricting storage and diver-sion to the historic limits is necessary to protect the river.

A standard legal limitation on changes of water rights restricts instantaneous diversions and sets a moving average based on the historic average; e.g., Westminster v. Church, 167 Colo. 1, 445 P.2d 52 (1968). According to the engineering report prepared by Amity in this case, over the past thirty-nine years, from 1936 through 1974, the average monthly storage during winter months is as follows:

November - 2,700

December - 4,900

January - 5,700

February - 4,000

The highest winter month's storage was 26,400 acre-feet in January 1958.

Should we negotiate a settlement based on historic aver-ages? For example, we could propose that:

1) Storage shall not occur in John Martin Reservoir at a rate exceeding 240 c.f.s.

2) Storage in John Martin Reservoir as a result of this decree and any decrees for the Great Plains Reservoirs shall never exceed the 50,000 acre-feet requested in this applica-tion.

3) Storage in both the Great Plains Reservoirs and John Martin Reservoir shall not exceed 130,000 acre-feet of usable storage, and shall not exceed 26,400 per month.

The Applicant's engineering report diversion records (Table 2) are attached. The winters of 1970 and 1973 are the wettest reported since 1958, when 46,550 acre-feet and 51,684 acre-feet, respectively, were stored and diverted at a rate of an average of 210 c.f.s. rather than 900 c.f.s. The State Engineer's river call shows the Kickingbird was in priority during all of those months.

_

FAIRFIELD AND WOODS

Board of Directors

March 2, 1982 Page Three

Because of the April 20, 1982, trial date, we will need a Board decision in March.

Very truly ypur

of

FAIRFIELD AND WOODS HH:rk

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Carl M. Shinn (w/enclosures)

CHARLES J. BEISE ROYAL C. RUEMIGHT GEORGE C KEELY MARY E. BRICKNER CHARLES E. MATHESON PETER F. BREITENST(IN CHARLTON H CARPENTER PATRICK F PENNY BRUCE B. JOHNSON HOWARD HOLM( JAMES L STONE MIC HALL m mCKINSTRY WILLIAM R. NEFF

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

1600 COLORADO NATIONAL BUILDING 950 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202

TELEPHONE (303) 534-6135

March 2, 1982

Board of Directors

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Gentlemen:

Re: Fort Lyon Cases: Status Report

GOLCHNG FAIRFIELD 0586 I97e.) JAMES A. WOODS (1898-1973) JAC K.SPERLING KEVIN B. PRATT DANIEL R. FROST DARRELL G. WAAS MARY JO GROSS ROBERT A. HOLMES ROBERT C. FISHER, JR. JOHN J . SILVER JOAN E. SOMM ERFELD ROCCO A.DODSON THOMAS P. KEARNS

The Fort Lyon cases involve an annual change of 5,000 acre-feet from Adobe, Horse Creek, and Queen Reservoirs to John Martin and change of the Fort Lyon direct flow right to a winter storage right to the extent of 45% of the November 1 to March 15 flow of the river. As with all change cases, 75-90% of the trial would be on the question of amounts of diversions and consumptive use. The questions for our Board and ditches on the river are how they will present their evidence if the case is tried, whether addi-tional engineering studies or exhibits need to be listed, and whether, in view of John Dumeyer's absence, they want to change previous policy of not hiring an engineer.

Kevin attended the deposition of Fort Lyon's expert, Duane Helton, on February 18, 1982, while Mr. Beise and I attended your Board meeting. The settlement conference in the case is sched-uled for March 15, 1982, and trial is set to begin May 11, 1982, and run for two weeks.

Other objectors in the case include the Amity, the AVDA, Colorado Canal, Rocky Ford, Bessemer, Holbrook, Public Service Company, and the Colorado Canal Proxy Group. John Wittemyer and Rex Mitchell have stated they will definitely contest the case. They have listed no engineers as witnesses, and Wittemyer did not attend the deposition. It is not clear whether or how ac-tive the other objectors will be at trial. Only Public Service Company has engineers listed to testify on the case.

With regard to the 5,000 acre-foot Adobe, Horse Creek, and Queen change, Fort Lyon claims an 83% consumptive use of the water presently stored in Horse Creek and Adobe Creek Reservoirs and a 91% consumptive use of the water stored in Queen Reservoir. A substantial amount of that consumptive use comes from the claim

FAIRFIELD AND WOODS

Board of Directors

March 2, 1982 Page Two

that water in the Fort Lyon, except where it is very close to the river, does not return to the river within 100 years and so is non-tributary. The statements of Fort Lyon's engineer appear inconsistent and incomplete. At deposition, Mr. Helton claimed that all seepage from fields was considered tributary to the river. However, his report indicates otherwise. On the other hand, Mr. Helton considers little of the Fort Lyon Ditch seep-age to be tributary. Further, Mr. Helton stated he had never investigated the quantities of surface return flows to the river and has never done a Glover analysis concerning the 100-year return flow.

With regard to the change of direct flow rights to winter storage rights, Mr. Helton's engineering reports do not dis-cuss potential injury or necessary conditions to prevent in-jury. Past winter storage programs have granted Fort Lyon 38-42% of the river, while it now claims 45%. Three to 7% of the river constitutes thousands of acre-feet of disagreement. Helton agreed that the winter storage application might cause calls downstream of John Martin. Fort Lyon could prove a prima facie case by Mr. Helton's simple testimony that the change causes no injury. In the absence of testimony to the contrary, the Court would probably grant the change as requested.

We have been following the case from the sidelines, rely-ing on other objectors to protect the river and hoprely-ing Tommy can reach an agreement among the ditches for a permanent pro-gram. There is a risk that Fort Lyon may refuse any settle-ment and go to trial while objectors are relatively unprepared to present their side of the case.

We will need to be told at the March Board meeting if the Board wants us to be ready to present witnesses and exhibits and whether any additional experts should be sought.

HH:rk

Very truly yours,

of

FAIRFIELD AND WOODS

TABLE 2

17''

_

KICKING BIRD CAML DIVERSIONS1 Value in AcrQ-Feet

YEAR

I, NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB . MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP - OCT

TOTAL

REMARK

•

1936 _{230 58 2,130} 2,418 1937 , 933 4 349 4,043 _{96 415 2,612 12,448} 1938 470 4,636 4,049 1,221 3,907 14,283 1939 136 116 434 ₆₈₆ 1940 _{971 350} ___ _ ___ 1,321

1941

_{5_,265,19,954}

_{10,934 1682 2 204 16 346 58,385} 1942 1,181 13,522 6,680 9,770 11,546 23,665 16,958 16,692 8,089 4,107 1,456 14,156 127,822 1 /

1943"

22,476 21,950 9,794 1§.,194) 1,384 _{, 71,798} 1944 , 6,392 6,130 5,34 910 10 266 16 472,13,990 1,112_ 444 7 558 _67,052 1945 _ 3,884 4,850 _ 9,168 6 574 6,478 126 2,232 406 19 846 990 541_270 1946 _{632 3,794 8,226 4 924} _ 292 _ 19,708 7 1-. 1947

4,,

6_046,506-74_698

15,918 11,268 4,080

_14.,.640_11024

4,806 172

654

422 751.668 " 1948 ,

__7_,_516_101.302

9 404

3,100

1,378 25,114 700 49,954

1949

714 492 _{7,416 33,908}

195_0

750 4,040 1,472 5 724 ),498 14,184 1951 , 540 1,260 1,758 1,016 .__ 7L432 2,9661_ 15,972 1952 , _{1)548 2,040, 1,322 494 120 4,144 110} 10,794

1953

578 1,088 2,362_ 2,456 178 1,732 13,680 20,636 856 1,380 - 752-3_004_ -5,554 401 6,264 1954 864 1,896 _6,146

1955

58 138 -14,780 2,161_ 5 232 1956 - - - - _{___.:} , // -25,340 4,602 112 -_ -1957 _11,058 70,412 7,1 1 1958 , 13,400 _{8 402 26_,400,}

5,473

19 352300

3,992

6,920 _132,664 1959 _{86_0 U0} 15,177 1960 _{386 2 112 955} 7.,J20 5,740 _1*_04Q 840 1,2305,523_{__.} 2,_911 264O 1,041._ 4640 ._ __ 24473 440_ 24,215 1961 10,670 2,330 ? 1962 , 2,848 1,970 15,860 _{, 1,160} _ 342 48,628 1963 1,275 1,130 929 _3,676 1964 - _- - - - 700

----:

pkiN-Mly

va 1965_, _{___10.2_13 9,96112,844}

1.7Q2

10,1160.,__44+1379 \ ' 1966 ' _{34_651 8,333 21,758 16,Q98 3,142} ___9„294

_44_69

62,153 _ 1

TABLE 2

KICKING BIRD _CANAL DIVERSIONS Values in Acre-Feet

YEAR

1 NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

TOTAL

REMA

-1967 365 530 451 1,889 6,235 1968 75 1,549 1,457 _{-__1,922________} 5,003

1969

180 _{3.660 0} 8,170 1,040

4.48118.970

36,610 5"

1970

'

17.1_QQ 16,950 10,000 2,50O 800 2,600 10,520 1,500 1117,520 79,490 1971 13,223 5,345 18,568 1972 6 166 10.904 4,960 22,030 :Pi 1973 ./ 5,980 18,014 14,940, 12,750

_1.350

J.0282 12,i90 5÷437 1.156 400 82,494

1974

7.394

;

10,692

11,3138

6,168 35 642 _1‘.---i,7201-1,W TOTAL (11,507 I0,141- 211 1 18S 141,150 g5,10- 5_. csU Is -

On

..

(-34S

1.125

„314_4C

V/ci

rt(4 11b I 341,612

-700, 1 1 1P-10

1 AVERAGE iscci tot,i c,

-

/oK ilo

Li 1

7-- 1,5

ix_i35 1

34,04

.

.

9 0 -7: (.670 i I .2-6/0 16 140 ii, Scf1 I, V) 1-1,

li (7.. X.4271)

13.4

7 4.7% 9.9 19 r? L-00 c- 1 00 , 1 • '

-4-COMBINED FIRST OF MONTH USABLE STORAGE IN NEE NOSHE, NEE GRONDA, AND NEE SOPAH RESERVOIRS

YEAR !AN FEB MAR _APR MAY I JUN JUL AUG SEP

1 OCT NOV DEC TOTAL. REMARKS

1950_ 67,853 68,641 74073 56,489 54.931 50,464 50,466 47,796 47,262 _{47,262 47,796 41,006 (c,c-)2,093 IC, YR 1,t3/k} 1951 _{41,525 41,525 41,525 35,974 20,950 24,558 25,925} 27,092' 21,827 _{21,38f 21,386 20,947 3iiLlic,2_0 lTliv-} 1V.-011 1952 20,94720,067 17,43617,436 18,095 _{13,215 13,215 0} 3,403 2,53c 1,546 0 al m o 1953 0 0 0 0 0 0 _{0 0} v 0 ₀ 0 ₀ 0 1954 0 _{0 0 0 0} . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 C) 1955 _{Q 0 0 0} 0 -. 0 0 0 _{n 0 0} o 1956 0 0 0 ₀ 0, 0 _0 0 _{n 0 .} 0 _{0 0} 0 1957 0 _{0 0 n 0 0 0 0} 1657 1,321 _{1,321 4.60_ ILI. lic2} 1958 18,298 _{44,717.53,489 98,254 111,344109,51D 110,880-06,682 101,30} 98_089 47.794

WADI

I

_.

3,00,L,51.,150421,i

1959 _28.446 91,87192,667 50,466 _ 50,466 97,794 50,466 97,794 51,534 96,412, 50,466 91_,471 48,864 78,617 48,073 66.13Q 64178 51,53- 51,267 97,7944-n

.,--1-75).

1960 41.00„%. 5,239 1,65; 227 227 NS_4(,Ro 3% mq _i -inlo_2 12-0Lqw

„LE.113531,,:;_qc-53

2,7i.('006 1Wm072' 2,45q0,1-1S )-5o315 1961 227, 0 10,774 10 671 7,271 1,657' 990 25Q 2,530 1,83 1,212 1,435 1962 7,975 19,798 26,03726,037 25,382 _{25,07E1 26,037 27,026 18,052} 81 217 2,617 g05m13 WI ,L0 1963 2,530 _{4,321 5,335_ 5,431 5,239 2,53q 2,443} 1,831 0 ₀ 0 0 1964 0 0 _{0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0} 0 0 0 0 210.3Th 1;56lins" 1965 0 0 0 _

9_-.,o

o

o

o

0

10,02, 21 327 27,594 5(/,150 1966 2,56539,764 _{45,40 0)4,27A.05.8.4.1,10143014 92,667_ 84,73.!! 81,655 80,19 77,995_70,611 cia31 J54} 1%,001 -3LAILga3 .351.24K Li9315;(1 1411341. _ 1967 69,921 70,611 691 92i'67,138 6,406 63,041 61,713 _{59 710 55 938 53,73 50,466,49,398} 1968 48,864 48,864 _{48,330 47,262} 45,677 35,9fl 33,065. 4,871 25,469 26 380 13,3: _{4,3214,141 381,6N5} 7 ),Tik,119S I0C1 1969 4,321 3.953 3.730 5,055 _{7,607 7 5,62 4,871} 3,403 4,32 15,325 43,600 * 0„.(,Vic .2 4'01A1 !!;,V1305 3514,,n,)_ lw fLit). ,3111-1S,(11 3,•11,59-1 ,

22,1-7L4i3n _317.45o

1970 74,265 * 971 794 * 104,924,102,172 4100,430._ * * * 92,799.06_1682 * 101,301 85,644 * 75,78, * 921667, * 1,03tim,,c, 0 1971 _* * * 1972 * * * * * * * _* * * 3.401 0 VID3 1973 _{0 12:808} 21,825 24,103 42,043 _{53.734 60_,.310_ 49,932 36,980, J_9.63 17,434 15.747 3511,C)50 _3,5clq , ifi' ,35q,q20} 1974 _{17,436 26,380 41,00643,081 37,986 14,90113,215 0} 0Q * * v V I, r)c). i -_,113.100a713Q

i

5'1'1,00 (,)-10,107 101.41c TicliVI 7ahlflU , -13(g ,1'4141 40n43.7) ci5 IMO 4(4(.41/i_{t 5b6.6N}

(13VN

1,c)M A

'_{Source of data: Official Diversion Records, Colorado Division of Water Resources.} * No record

TABLE 4

FIRST OF MONTH USABLE _STORAGE IN QUEEN RESERVOIR

YEAR

_JAN

FEB

_MAR

_APR

MAY

_JUN

JUL

_AUG

_SEP

OCT

_NOV

_DEC

TOTAL

_REMARKS

195,9 _{9%330 9,677 9,551} 9,173 _7,475 6,901 _{6,901. 7.831} 9,803 6,224 5145 _4,319 1951 _{4,319 4,503}

4,T04

- 4,836 _4,629 4,221 _5,042 6,006 4,122 _2,877 2,331 _{2 245}

_91,

(i(„,

1952 _2,245 4,317 _{5,143 5,143}

5,247

_{5.040 5,677} 3,925 3_244 2,509 0 ₀ tail-PIO -1953

_o

_2,288

2,601 2,418 2,245 ₀ 0 _{0 0 0} 0 ₀ c1.5") 1954 0

o

o

_o

_o

o

o

0

0o

0 9 0 1955

9

o

_o

0

o

o

_o

o

₀

_o

o

• ₀ 1956

_o

0

_o

₀

0

_n

₀

o

₀

_o

o

₀

J)

1957

₀

n

_n

₀

0

0

_{14_._627 15.223}

14,180.19.996 15.0 JE.11311..A.D1(

1958 _15,824 15.670 15,521 17,216 16.950 16,752 14,627 12,478 11.108 10,317 _10,0tr 94928 J(42,1-1`6 1959 _{9,171 11,372 13,607} 13,320 12 472 11 922 _10,713 8,672 _{7,187 5,143} 4,937 _* 3.152 .1tA,51t, 7LL911.- YAORd,_{5(a1tA l(} 55,70t1 iton. 1960 4,731 4,834 _4,93/ 8,190 11,240 10,317 _9,423 8,919 _{5,786 .1,556} 3,827 1961 _3,152 9 423 12,404 _{12,129 11,647} 10,186 10,515 10,054 8,198 _7,588 7,014 , 84311 _nail 01(14 (1,

_ujla

1962 10,976 13,034 13,392 13,822 13,034 12,679 _{12,472 10,372 -9,171} 6,785 _1,728

_2,693

0,o05K

(,-1q19(-. (01946

196i

2,969 _{4,834 6,084} 6,059 5,459 _3,827 3,152 1,556

₀

_o

- ),940

_103,354

103n0

1D.35

ID . lAc

1964

0

₀

_o

1965 ₀

o

₀

₀

0

₀

0

0

_{10,713 11,647} 114422 11-509 _49,-111 PiSLUTia 1(11,(aqi_ 111,111 14.4421 ift11-1. 1966

_{k_11,372,}

14,925,,,15,372 174.139 16,443 _{14.62/ 12,891_, 9,045 10,054} 7,949 _9,828 8,431 1967 _:81311 8,311 _8,070 7,588 7,014 6.585 _8,74ff10,515 7,949 _6,222 4,834 _4,834 nitqA, _icftvc T1,9(.1 1968 4,834 _5,568 5,5681 5,247 _4,834 4,627 _5,786

_5,350

6,670 _2,418 2,602 _{2,877 5c,i ya} -i m i c. _-ms4 1969 2,695 _2,693 2602 4,834 _{4,70 4,317} 8,190 _{8,191 6,785} 6,332 _5.895

13.464 __J ,_.11-1

_{15 I cffi}

_15j5

19/0

13,464 13,464 13 464 _{12,891 12,328} 12,060 14,130

₁

_4,333

_11,372 9,672 _9,801 *

01

ct

V1A/0

_51,1U.

1971 _t * _* * * * * * * * * _*

0

_101,01

1972 * * 1973

4,524

6.222

_9,928

_9.4.9211

10,186

₁₈₀₂

9,043

_{8,311 6.114} 4,834 _3,630 5.143 , Sci-LbC _(10c 63Alic 1974 -0.793 10,186 10,054 _{9.691, 9,423} 7,014 5,786 ₀ 0 _{0 * *} ('Ll051 _Vi5111)3 41,S7C. 111L310

_{1,1411.1 6,}

)

_{131- 1`,1,13'-t 1)5 YA„ 1 -10411}

ILS1,113/

_{140, r(51 1 1)1,9St, 101)100 TI137,,}

(13y3)11

_119H

_,4q0

f -,, k K 1

Source of data: _{Official Diversion}

Records, Colorado Division _{of Water Resources.} * No record

Duplicate pages

not scanned

See originals in folder

Water Resources Archive

Copyright protected

documents

not scanned

See originals in folder

Water Resources Archive