WSP08812

• File Number: 7630.275
• Description: Wild and Scenic-Flat Tops Wilderness Area
• State: CO
• Date: 8/3/1973
• Author: Felix Sparks
• Title: Flat Tops Wilderness Area-Memorandum-Flat Tops Wilderness Area
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

".

't.,

'A
n~5ti;:

"

--

Water Development Settinq

... .

Reference is made in Case No. W-787 about Carter Oil Co.
having an interest in the Flat Tops Project and in the South Fork Res-
ervoir. The District apparently has contracts with Exxon Oil and
Refining Co. and others to perform diligence and other work pertaining
to.their filings, according to Mr. Rollie Fischer in a recent telephone
~nversation. The District has a specific contract with Exxon regarding
the South Fork Reservoir site (claimed by Fourteen-Mile Land Co.) for
.construction of the ~am and appurtenances with the CRWCD retaining the
power revenues. An operational interest also exists between E~~on
(Carter Oil Co.) and: the Bearwal10w portion of the Flat Tops Project,
situated on Canyon Creek (tributary to the Colorado). However, the
District according t~ Fischer, does not plan to utilize White River
water for the Bearwallow system, only water from Canyon Creek. Continual
mention is made of the ~latTops Tunnel in diligence filings since it
was originally an integral part of the Flat Tops filings. '
, i
,
i It was expressed in W-787 that Carter Oil company recognized
the delicate environmental problems associated with a dam site in the
South Fork Canyon and had begun investigation of alternate sites. The
Bureau of Reclamation also explored various alternative sites for the
Yellow Jacket Project which are discussed in their Draft Environmental
Statement of the Project. Two ,of the Bureau's sites are relevant here.
One site, located 6 miles upstream from the confluence of the North and
South Forks, was named theSweetbriar Reservoir site and the other,
named the Rio Blanco Reservoir site, was to be located at the beginning
of the South Fork Canyon. The'Bureau stated that "the site was not as
economically attractive as the Sweetbriar site since it would require
a higher dam and more storage to produce the same reservoir yield."
The Bureau also felt that the impact of the site would be more signifi-
cant since "the lower'flows of the South Fork at the higher elevation
would cause the flows of the South Fork ,to be reduced further." In
, ~
the end, both dam sites were rejected because of adverse environmental
impact.

Be., '
r~ .
r:

t-'.'

~'
".;,
.... '
~;, ';' .

...,:

~',
;
'f:

~,
,

",( .
;r",
~.
'-~,

,~'
~,

Finally, in a filing of diligence in W-719 dated 5/30/72 by
the RMPC it was stated, inter alia, that financial backing by two large
investment banking firms in New York would'be contingent upon suf-
ficient evidence of a power and water market. Subsequent Secretary of
Interior meetings in the Fall of 1970 resulted in assurance of the
Bureau of Reclamation's willingness to wheel power for the RMPC. vlater
sale market investigations resulted in a "study of an.~xchange plan to
deliver water to the eastern slope." '. This plan involved filing and

t,

Memorandum

-4-

August 3, 1973

" ;

.i