WSP10314

• File Number: 8131.400
• Description: Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 1/12/1967
• Author: SEWCD
• Title: Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors - January 12 1967
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Board Memo

~
C'l
fJ,l
~
~
~

My reaction to the subject study is that it is very cleverly designed
for propaganda purposes and for use in misleading members of the
legislature. the Governor, and others. It is a dangerous report that
should be answered in order to prevent it influencing legislators.
First let us remember that in the recent well case, . an attempt was
made to force proof of i:c;ary to a particular ditch. The Court as I
remember refused to agree that this had to be done. The Court' B position
probably accounts for the Attorney releasing this Study.
I cannot agree that with the information given that the conclusions, on
page four of the Study, have any truth in them for the following reasons:
1. Averages have no bearing on whether injury occurred to any given
decree. The Wlit of measure of a water right is \\per second of time".
A given Ditch might divert large quantities in a very dry year during
periods of heavy snow runoff or flash floods, and at the same time have
its crops burn up during the low flow periods of the growing season.
This is especially true with the Ditches which have se-.eral decrees, as
do all of th!:: :~itches in the Valley.
2.. Again. averages have no beaTing without a close study of the
date of call on priorities. The Ditches in the Study have Tery good water
rights. No doubt their averages may exc.eed any other group you might
pick on the Rive r.
:). The Study does not mean anything unless you take all the Ditches
on the River and 9tudy their averages, jIf you will, but better yet, the
dates they were shut down by a call from the Division Englneer in order
to supply the very Ditches used in the Study.
4. The Study does not take into consideration the type and acreages
of crops being irrigated each year. A case in point is that of hiB COn-
clusions in re the Booth Orchard Grove Ditch. This Ditch has one of
the senior rights on the Arkansas River. In fact its first two priorities
which are for all practical purposes 100'0 available. diverted for the
average days of the Study. approximate the average diversions shown
in the report. What about water for their other rights, were they avail-
able when needed without a call on the junior decrees to supply them?
5. The lack of any information in the Study on the junior decrees
direct flow, as well as storage right9, proves my point that the Study
is wrong, and does not present the true facts to the public. I know Mr.
Attorney Vranesh will say that he only considered the Ditches mentioned
and that their averages indicate no injury. As mentioned above. averages
do not tell the true story on river flow. As far as a decree is concerned
it is the second of time, and also the call on the River to supply the
very Ditches listed in the Study.
6~ A well is used when owner decides to turn the .witch. Surface
direct flow and storage depend on flow of the River.

s/ Harold H. Christy

REPORT - 7 BASIN STATES MEETING:
President Nichols gave a report on the 7 3asin States Meeting which he attended
in Los Angeles, December 12, 1966. He stated that Congressman Wayne
Aspinall had proposed a number of changes in Federal Legislation which might
make it possible to get the Central Arizona Project Bill approved in the 90th
Congress. The Colorado Water Conservation Board approved the amended Bill
on December 14, 1966.

In reply to a query by McCurdy about provisions in the Central Arizona Project
for Upper Basin water, Nichols stated that the amended Bill does provide for
the Colorado Projects.

-3-

",'

.'

,.

- ~'.

.,

, .~'.

~-, ">\" : .",

.. ..

.
..

..'.

".'

.~,;.
,..,.'

.. .
, ~. ' ,

.: .~