WSP12043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

291:) iii ,> effec~ on existing irrigation in the area or on future opportunity to increase IiI storage in existing reservoirs and in new upstream reservoirs. The questions raised were valid, and since that time the Bureau of Reclamation and the Colorado 1,later \ Conservation Board have cooperated in an attempt to bring about an ans'ler that would be satisfactor;y- to both the proponents and the opponents of the p~oject. On the other hand, a petition requesting immediate constr~ction of the clarrows Dam waS presented some months ago to the Board s~gned by a number of individuals in the Fort Morgan area. ' The Narrows Unit would serve multiple purposes: (1) flood control, its primaIY purpose; (2) conservation; and (3) of real importance, although perhaps not of immediate concern, it would enable Horthe~,stern Colorado to make maximum utilization by regulation of flows of water imported from the Colorado River. t lindeI' terms of the Colorado liiver Basin Compact, ,ony water brought into the c,outh i'latte i\iver Basin must ultimately be used within the ,State. If: this is not accomplished, difficulties will eventually arise with the six other basin states of the Colorado River Basin. The Solicitor General in a decision concerning the Colorado [(iver Compact held Colorado !liver water must be, used in t:1e respective Colorado !liver Basin states. Maximum use of wateris of concern to,the people in the bouth L'latte area in Colorado because shortages frequently,occur. It is necessarJ that full utili- zation be made of waters linported into that basin. This is only good economy. To accomplish this purpose, reservoir storage in the vicinity of Fort Mol' can is re- quired. The broad aspects of the proposed 1;arrows must be considered and a determin- ation must be made of how this project fits into the future water conservation pl~ns of the btate. II. The Bureau of !leclamation plan of develo~"e~t for the Narrows Unit was presented by J. H. Knights. The talk "/as divided into +,!';e following subjects: purpose, history, selection of location, altern"~e ~i":.es, plan of development, acquisition of right-of-way, vlater rights (prcsent-:cut',ore), tax losses, flood control, sediment control, method of operation, dis;,osal of yeater (interim-ultimate) and surnmar:r of negative and positive be,nefits. "-ee atta~j;J1l8r,t J:o. 1 for resume. III. R. J. Tipton's discussion of the i{arrovls plan at the hearings is sum- marized in the followinG paragraphs: ~ The investigation of the damsite in this vicinity bv the U.S.B.R. started in the late SUJJuner of 19h7 after general flclOds in the :iis~ouri River Basin had re- sulted in authorization of the Narrows. Funds sufficient for the Bureau of Recla- mation to initiate construction of the NarrovlS 0am were appropriated at this time. The \iater Board i10 its early studies believed that a reservoir at the Fort'Horgan site would flood much less productive irriGated l~nd. Other questions\~re raised by irrigation interests as to the plan, of operation and the effect of the reservoir on existing water rights, multi?le filling practices, and other related problems. The Bureau, on the basis of preliminary investigations, had se:!ected th8 Narrows site, considering the Fort worgan site undesirable because of ~roblems concerned with the diversion of Bijou Creek ar~ seepage problems. The Bureau 'cooperated wholeheartedly and brought 'data on the Fort Morgan damsite up to a basis comparable