The use of the sump area of the San Luis Valley for a water salvage project was first mentioned by an employee from the United State Geological Survey in 1906 after the Republic of Mexico was allocated 60,000 AF of Rio Grande Water by an international treaty between the United States and the Republic of Mexico.

The Closed Basin Project, along with many other projects, is discussed in the Rio Grande Joint Investigation report published in 1938. A discussion of a proposed sump drain for the salvage of water now lost by evaporation and transpiration by non-beneficial vegetation begins on page 123 of the report. In the publication it states “In the Rio Grande Compact I concluded in 1929, construction of the sump drain is advocated as a desirable feature in the economic development and conservation of the waters of the Upper Rio Grande Basin and as a helpful factor in the reaching of a permanent compact and accord among the three signatory states.”

Chapter 2 top

Various estimates of the average amount of water that would be added to the Rio Grande annually had been made from time to time, beginning with the estimate of 300,000 acre-feet by the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1915. An engineering consultant for Colorado estimated 175,000 to 200,000 acre-feet in data presented at the Rio Grande Compact meeting in Santa Fe, January 1929; and a committee of engineers appointed to report to the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works in connection with an application filed for the construction of the sump drain as a project of that agency, estimated 40,000 acre-feet in 1935.

Considerable water quality work on streams flowing into the sump area was conducted along with groundwater sampling. In 1936 a groundwater analysis of 43 shallow wells in Townships 40 and 41 North Range 11 East which included San Luis and Head Lakes and a portion of the sump area west and north of the lakes which would contribute to the sump drain showed specific conductance to vary from a low of 30 to a high of 800. This is probably the reason there is the water quality parameters in the Rio Grande Compact for the discharge of the Closed Basin Project Water in to the Rio Grande for Compact purposes.

A memorandum from the Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Felix Sparks, to his board dated August 25, 1967 states the following, “In the minutes of the Rio Grande Compact Commission we find reference to the fact that somewhere around 1935, a federal appropriation of $900,000 was made available to commence the construction of the Closed Basin Drain. Apparently there were some fears that the type of drain proposed at that time would create unacceptable salinity conditions and construction was not started.

Chapter 3 top

“In a report to the Board under the title of San Luis Valley Project I dated March 1939 prepared by R.J. Tipton consulting engineer, the construction of the Closed Basin Drain was again recommended. This report was included in a report to the Congress by the Department of Interior entitled, “Reservoirs on the San Luis Project Colorado” and subsequently published as House Document No. 693 76th Congress 3rd Session. The Congress subsequently authorized the construction of the San Luis Valley Project by the Interior Department Appropriation Act I. However, the report and authorization made the construction of the Closed Basin Drain contingent upon a finding of justification for the drain on the basis of cost and quality and quantity of water to be obtained. During the subsequent period of World War II and the Korean War almost nothing was done concerning the Closed Basin Project.

“During the past ten years with some financial assistance from the State of Colorado, the Bureau of Reclamation undertook the task of satisfying the contingency requirements set forth in the 1941 authorization . All previous plans concerning the Closed Basin Drain involved the construction of open drains from the Closed Basin into the river. It became apparent that if open drains were constructed then it would be most difficult, if not impossible to control the quality of water which would be discharged into the drain.

“As a result of a rather exhaustive engineering and geologic investigation, it was determined that by the substitution of selective pumping and controlled mixing in lieu of an open drain that the desired quality of the composite flows could be easily maintained. It was on this basis that the final plan was developed and submitted to the Secretary of the Interior where it is now pending.

Chapter 4 top

“Enclosed herewith is proposed federal legislation developed by Mr. Moses, Mr. Geissinger, and the staff of this Board to authorize the Closed Basin Division of the San Luis Valley Project. Under the proposed legislation the Project cost, operation, and maintenance for the most part would be nonreimbursable to the federal government. However, after satisfying the requirements of the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge and compact treaty requirements not to exceed 60,000 acre-feet annually (unless deliveries over that amount were paid by water users in Colorado), the Project would still be able to supply substantial amounts of water for use in Colorado. The proposed legislation contemplates that this surplus water would be paid for by water users Colorado, together with ad valorem taxes, would satisfy a considerable portion of the annual operation and maintenance costs.

“The proposed legislation is in substantial accordance with the policy previously expressed by this Board, by the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District and by the Conejos Water Conservancy District. The Project report has been previously endorsed by the States of New Mexico and Texas and by the National Rivers and Harbors Congress. It is therefore recommended that this Board approve the form of the enclosed legislation for submission to the members of Colorado’s delegation in the United States Congress.”

Since the District did not come into existence until September 12, 1967, there are no records available at this office from 1962 until the above date.

A short three years after the publication of the Bureau of Reclamation’s feasibility report, the state of Colorado alleging that Colorado has not met its delivery obligations for the Rio Grande Compact by accruing a debit of over 900,000 acre-feet when only allowed, under the terms of the compact, to accrue a debit of 100,000 acre-feet. The law suit was filed September 30, 1996.

Chapter 5 top

At the October 24, 1967, Board meeting, the Board of Directors passed a motion that tentatively approved a bill for presentation to Congress to authorize the Closed Basin Project, but reserved the opportunity for requests by the District for revision as the views of the residents of the San Luis Valley are developed and become known to the District. Mr. James D. Geissenger, an Assistant Attorney General, who was one of the drafters of the proposed legislation was present at the meeting. At the December 24, 1967, meeting, a resolution was passed which in affect reversed the Board’s decision at the October 24, 1967, meeting to tentatively approve the proposed legislation for the Closed Basin Project. In essence, the Board requested that the Colorado Water Conservation Board postpone any request for the Closed Basin Project proposed legislation because of 5,300 acre-feet of Project production was to go to the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge.

There are very few minutes for Board meetings until 1971, therefore there is no record as to what was happening on the Closed Basin Project legislation. However, there are a few pieces of correspondence from Bob Wham, former Attorney for the District. Correspondence from Mr. Wham to Mr. Gessinger dated March 1, 1968, indicates that the Board as having adopted a resolution stating that it needed more information about how groundwater interests might be affected before approving the Project. The letter also states that the Board held an open meeting on February 28, 1968, at which the local representative of the USGS, Phil Emery presented the approach his organization is taking to determine factually what affect the Project will have on groundwater interests in the Closed Basin.

Chapter 6 top

Correspondence from Mr. Wham to Bob Taylor, President of the Board dated March 21, 1968, indicates that a meeting had been held in Washington D.C. with Congressman Wayne Aspinall, Colorado on a Monday afternoon. His was brought up to date on the progress of the Board and was given suggested amendments to the proposed authorizing legislation for the Closed Basin Project and told him that the Board was opposed to any legislation without such amendments.

At the present time there is no information that can be found in the District files concerning the proposed legislation or proposed Board amendments.

In the February 16, 1971, Board meeting minutes under the subject of Closed Basin Project, Mr. Paul Davis, Engineer, states that he had been hearing about some environmental based articles in the Courier and other media, based on erroneous information as to the ecological effect of the Sump Project. He felt that some answers should be formed by the District based on the facts of the situation rather than hearsay. Director Myers stated that he had run into strong opposition in the north part of Saguache County and the people in that part of the County were all set to submit letters protesting the Project to Washington D.C. He said they agreed to hold off until the Board position could be presented. The Board asked Paul Davis, Bud Sweet, and F.C. Eddy to prepare a statement from the District.

Chapter 7 top

The July 13, 1971, minutes indicate that the Closed Basin Project authorizing legislation had been given to Colorado’s Congressional delegation and the manager was instructed to contact Bill Cleary (Congressman Aspinall’s Chief of Staff) about the status of the Bill and if hearing were to be held in the near future. The Board was interested in getting the legislation into that particular session of Congress.

The August 31, 1971, minutes indicate that the legislation was in trouble. The minutes state, “The Board concurred with Attorney Wham that a thorough investigation should be made of our reasoning for the non-reimbursable clause in the present Senate Bill which had been brought out in discussions between him and Senator Allot’s assistants. That some answer should be found on what has been done to meet the terms of the Mexican Treaty on? Of the Rio Grande. That we at the same time take every effort to assist Representative Aspinall in his efforts to release the report on the Project now held by the Office of Management and Budget.

The October 26, 1971, Board Minutes under the topic of Closed Basin Project states, “Attorney Wham reported that a tentative date for the Board to meet with the Office Management in Senator Allot’s office had been set for November 19th. The Board then went into discussion on the presentation of our case for total non-reimbursability. It was decided that a meeting be held between Larry Sparks, CWCB, Bob Wham, Paul Davis, and the manager in the near future to set up a format and assign topics for different individuals to speak to in the Washington meeting.

The Board minutes of a special meeting held on November 15, 1971, reflect that a meeting would be held on November 18, 1971, in Senator Allot’s office in Washington D.C. beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those present would be Senators Allot, Tower, Dominick, Under Secretary of Interior Jim Smith and Assistant Secretary of Interior Ellis Armstrong. The person to represent the Office of Management and Budget was not known at that time. It was expected that the delegation from the San Luis Valley would also meet with Representative Aspinall and Jim Casey of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of which Representative Aspinall was Chairman.

Chapter 8 top

The San Luis Valley delegation would consist of Directors Dale Sowards and Kelly Sowards, Attorney Wham, Engineer Paul Davis, Manager F.C. Eddy and Bill Kopfman, representing the Rio Grande Water Users Association. Larry Sparks, Director Colorado Water Conservation Board would also be in attendance.

Mr. James R. Quinn, a consultant who had experience in these matters was at the Board meeting. Mr. Quinn was retained by the Board to attend the meeting and prepare a brochure containing as many facts as possible to leave in the hands of the representatives of the office of Management and Budget for their future use.

It appears form the Board minutes of April 17, 1972, that action on the Bill to authorize the Closed Basin Project was progressing slowly and the Office of Management and Budget would not issue its report on the Project. Representative Aspinall was to be contacted. From the minutes of the special Board meeting held on June 19, 1972, it appears that the Office of Management and Budget had issued its report with the following suggested amendments: That the Project be reimbursable, not non-reimbursable; Channel rectification establishment of the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge, Mishak Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area. The Board agreed to all amendments except making the Project reimbursable and establishment of the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area. Senate hearings on the Bill S-520, were to be held on June 26, 1972. Those attending the hearings were Larry Sparks, Director Colorado Water Conservation Board, Jesse Gilmer, R.G. Compact Commissioner, Texas, Steve Reynolds, R.G. Compact Commissioner, New Mexico, Clarence Kuiper, G.G. Compact Commissioner, Colorado, Attorney Wham, Engineer Paul Davis, Board Member Don Myers, Manager F.C. Eddy, and Bill Kopfman, Rio Grande Water Users Association.

Chapter 9 top

The July 18, 1972, minutes reflect that Attorney Wham, Engineer Paul Davis, Board member Don Myers, Manager F.C. Eddy and Bill Kopfman would present testimony before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. The date of the Committee hearings is not stated in the minutes.

At a special Board meeting held on September 12, 1972, the Board discussed the final draft language of the proposed bill for the Project. Some dissatisfaction with the language was expressed by Board members. It was decided to call a meeting late in September after the bill had passed and call in as many of the hard core opposition as possible for discussion in an attempt to head off any concentrated effort of a rash of letters asking the President not to sign the bill into law.

At a special meeting held on September 27, 1972, concerns of those opposed to the Project were heard. One big concern expressed at the meeting was that New Mexico and Texas would claim the Closed Basin water would belong to them. It was at this meeting that the manager suggested that one way to assure the claims and rights of the people about any excessive demands on the Closed Basin water by lower basin states or the U.S. Government was to submit a plan for a conditional decree to the Water Court and file on any unappropriated water within the Closed Basin Project area. The opposing guests agreed that this was a constructive approach and agreed to the concept depending on how the decree was written. After discussion the Board instructed the manager, attorney and engineer to file an application for a conditional decree.

The bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate and maintain various Federal reclamation projects and for other purposes was passed by the 92nd Congress on October 20, 1972. This bill is officially known as Public Law 92-514. Under Title I of this bill, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct, operate and maintain the Closed Basin Division, San Luis Valley Project. At this time Congress authorized an appropriation of $18,246,000 for the construction of the Closed Basin Project.

Chapter 10 top

Getting the Closed Basin Project authorized proved to be a difficult task for the District to accomplish. There was a great deal of opposition to the Project, especially from northern Saguache county. A loose coalition of opponents known as the Concerned Citizens Group was formed to fight the Project. The Board and Manager spent countless hours in public relations work to get enough Valley support to get the Project authorized by Congress. Even after the Project was authorized by Congress, the opposition continued on a sporadic basis.

At a special Board meeting held on February 13, 1973, the Board (among other things) listened to statements and questions regarding the District’s application for water rights in the Closed Basin. Those attending from the Concerned Citizens group were: Virginia Sutherland, Vinus Sutherland, Bob Teems, Ivan Teems and John Werner. For anyone interested in these statements and concerns, they can be reviewed as a part of the special Board meeting minutes.

So ends the saga for the District in getting the Closed Basin Project authorized.

At the October 16, 1972, quarterly Board meeting, Attorney Wham reported that a meeting was held on October 10, 1972, with himself, Paul Davis, and Clarence Kuiper to start the necessary work on filing on all unappropriated water within the Closed Basin Project boundaries.

At the January 15, 1972, meeting, Attorney Wham informed the Board that Paul Davis had worked up a description and necessary information for the filing of a conditional decree for 200,000 AF of ground water for the Closed Basin Project.