My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10175
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10175
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:57:37 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:11:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8141.200
Description
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - Mailing Lists and Correspondence
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1975
Author
various
Title
Fourteen Statements History of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Project Overview
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />() 'i 2 8 <br /> <br />7 <br />we then turned QUI' eyes to the problems at home. The major prob- <br />lem!; in 1965 "/ere the water wells commencing with REA power, better' <br />electric motors and better drilling, it for the first time became <br />economical from 1950 on to pump water for the irrigation of c crop, <br />By 1965 there were pumps installed which would pump more than the <br />volume of the Arkansas River in the dry months of the year ond <br />something hod to be done, otherwise it could be seen that if you <br />r-irnp.\y released water from Pueblo Reser"voir the big pumps with their <br />Coco-Cola strows stuck in the river bottom would suck it dry and <br />e~ a result Boustead ,who ,wastd.:h~rl '.our project maneger, set out and <br />our district backed Lerry Sparks the adoption of H. 1066, which was <br />o bill to bring the wells into the priority system, This was bit- <br />terly contested end every pumper resented the passage of this leg- <br />islation, Boustead, in getting the bill through the legislature, <br />spent a good bit of money wining and dining the legislators and <br />this gave an opportunity for what was later known os the "W$rme Case" <br />to challenge whether or not the district had been mismonaged, This <br />case was commenced in 1966 and was concluded by the Supreme Court <br />in approximately 1969 or 1970, in which the Supreme Court refused <br />to toke jurisdiction of the case and the pumpers were told to <br />start ell over ogoin if they wonted to do onything about it. This <br />basically broke their backs and the dir.trict unscathed continued <br />its efforts to bring the wells into the priority system, <br />In 1969. two major things occurred, reclly, on the project. <br />The environmentalists in Pitkin County complained ebout the building <br />of a road up Hunter Creek ond os a result it was decided to drive <br />the Hunter Creek tunnel from one adit. At the some time the BureaU <br />hod gone to the concept of high pump storage and had abandoned <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.