Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 1 - <br /> <br />o <br />Ul <br />.&>- <br />1-" <br /> <br />"Initial Development, Gunnison-Arkansas Project, Roaring Fork Diversion, <br />Colo~do" - is a misnomer and misleading, and in the future may, in some <br />manner, lead to unwarranted implications. In addition to the recommended <br />change in project identification, Colorado requests that the project be <br />authorized as the "Fryingpan-ArkaIlsas Project." <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />8, The Colorado Jiver \Iater Conserv~tion District is an agency created by <br />State statute (Chapter 20, p. 991, Session Lavrs of Colorado, 1931) for the con- <br />servation, use and development of the water resources of the Colorado River and <br />its principal tributaries. The area comprised within the District includes <br />seven counties and a part of an eighth county within the natural drainage of <br />the Colorado River in ',Iestern Colorado, The South"restern Water Conservation <br />District is an agency created by State statute (Chapter 231, p. 866, Session <br />Laws of Colorado, 1941) for the conservation, use and development of the water <br />resources of the San Juan and Dolores Rivers and their prinCipal tributaries, <br />The district comprises seven counties and a part of an eighth county vdthin <br />the natural basin of the Colorado River in Western Colorado; \'Ihen the Board <br />of Directors of each of these two districts passed upon the report and recommen- <br />dations of the Policy and Review Committee, including the "Operating Principles;" <br />as revised.. their separate resolutionsi among other thingsj contained the <br />following language, <br /> <br />Colorado River ~ater Conservation District Board <br /> <br />"BE IT F'URTHER RESOLVED, that in the opinion of the Board of Directors <br />of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the Colorado TIater <br />Conservation Board should adopt a resolution that no further federally <br />financed transmountain diversions from the natural COlorado River Basin <br />should be approved for authorization until the surveys described in said <br />Section IV above are completed and the need for the use of water in .Iestern <br />Colorado has been determined." (Section IV, to which reference is made, <br />is shOl'm by the two paragraphs con'~ained in the report of the Policy and <br />Review Committee, quoted on Page S of these comrr,ents, and commencing with <br />the words liThe Committee recognizes" and "The policy of the State," re- <br />spectively.) <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Southwestern \Tater Conservation District Board <br /> <br />"* * * ;< ;f this Board feels it should interpose no objection to the pro- <br />posed diversion, but with the clear and distinct understanding this <br />consent shall not be considered as waiver of objections to any other <br />federally financed transmountain diversion of the waters of the Colorado <br />River; and with the further understanding that the State Uater Conser- <br />vation Board of the State of Colorado shall not approve of any other such <br />federally financed diversion project until the studies of the needs of the <br />Western Slope be fully completed so that an intelligent decision relative <br />to such needs may be given. We feel that after the many and long delays <br />in making such studies and the promises made by some high in authority <br />in the Reclamation Service, the Western Slope is entitled to have such <br />