|
<br />2921
<br />
<br />Dc
<br />
<br />~~!~OOdS originating on Bijou Creek,or el~~ate flood d~age along the ~outh rlntte
<br />"l'!er below Narro":IS Dam. R. J. Tl.pton :u'.dl.cated that l.t would be possl.ble for 14ar-
<br />rm,s to operate without a water right decree and, further, that it would be recom-
<br />I~ended to the Colorado ~:ater C~nservi1tion B~a~d that Narrows be, constNcte:land ~per-
<br />~ated without a formal decree, J.n a manner s~l.lar to the operatl.on of John aartl.n
<br />"\ Reservoir. It,rpay be impossible, ho.levor, for the Bureau to, construct Narrows
<br />under such conditions, since the 1939 Reclamation Act makes it necessary that the
<br />::;ecretary oi' the Interior make a finding of feasibility. It is therefore question-
<br />able whether it would be possible to build llarrows i),"".l v;ithout a filing for water
<br />rights which might'be a necessary prerequiSite to 'r,r,"~ilg a finding of feasibility.
<br />
<br />The question pertaining to the political aspects and possibilities of a
<br />Missouri Valley Authority if Narrows is constructed was answered by Judge ::;tone.
<br />He outlined how the Missouri River Basin Inter-Agency Committee has been fomed as
<br />a constructive meCll1S of defeating a vrllley authority and stated that it had been
<br />functioning very successfully. It was further stnted by Judge Stone th,1t he ;lad
<br />opposed valley authorization every step of the way and, in his judgment, such a bill
<br />would not pass. ~8 further indicated that if construction were del~ycd on the
<br />Narrows Dam and other possible projects l'!i thin the 'fr:unework of Colorado 1m,s, such
<br />delay would be "'n argument in favor of a valJeyauthority. Construction of Narro':iS
<br />Dam should not be held in abeyance tmtil a decision is reached on any Missouri
<br />Valley Authority bills.
<br />
<br />Relative to a question concerning a Federal suit for adjudication of Western
<br />Slope vmte:r rights for tho Color::vio-Big Thompson Pr':>ject, Judge Stone stated
<br />the:re was a question in the minds of momy int<erssted groups as to vtnether n ruling
<br />by State Courts vmUld be binding on tho "'C>dernl Government, particul:crly "ith ref-
<br />erence to Senate Document 80 '/hich 58ts forth the agrean:mt betr;een East and nest
<br />Slope interests and the plan of opera tion for the Big Thompson proji?ct. The Fedcr::il.
<br />Court adjudication, ho stnted, Vlould have to bi} i.11 acco~dancc with St.ate water rig]It
<br />laws.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />Mr. C. O. Plumb asked numerous detailed questions concerning tho oper~tir.g
<br />procedures contemplated in connection with the CoLrado-Big Thom,Json Project. The
<br />necessi ty of making further use of importGd vm tel's; the! &J1nual flood r;moff of cfoo':~-
<br />hill strGams; if the Bureau did not try to sell ih,rroTi3 rmter in the Ark:Llsas
<br />Valley; and the location of new lams that would be: S ,,"-,"lied water under the ulti-
<br />mate plan for Narrows. Some of these questions 'iler,', ";~'i",red at this hearing b'f
<br />Messrs.Knights and Do'~glQss. In Cll1S"er to the, det:,,::":..,d questions, J.:lr. Knig~ts
<br />suggested that Mr. Plumbvisit the South Platte ?iver Dist,ict office of the Bur~au
<br />of Reclamation in Denmr and they would be! glad to cxplr,in operation studies made
<br />for the Colorado-Big Thompson Project ",nd the ;,,~,r'roVfS Iteservoir and to answer other
<br />questions that he might have.
<br />
<br />,"
<br />
<br />The questions at this meeting were submitted b;; R. V. '(ouse, J. Gordon Er.glish,
<br />Leonard G. Abbett., C. O. Plumb, and Frank B. ';)c.vis.
<br />
<br />No written statements were submitted at this meeting.
<br />
<br />Ornl Statements were made by Srumuol H. Lamb who spoke in favor of uDstrcam
<br />developnent for both irrigation and flood control. He stated that he v/ould hate to
<br />
|