My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12076
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSP12076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:19:48 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:22:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.B
Description
Upper Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1991
Author
Paul Upsons
Title
A Leader and Antagonist: Historical Forces Leading to Colorado's Influnce in Meeting Five of the Upper Colorado River Compact Commission (Honors Thesis for U. of Denver History Dept)
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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 />40 <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />minds of many Coloradans; that is, "I'lhat, if any reimbursement shall be made <br /> <br />to a state in which a pcoject is located for ~1e benefit of another state for <br /> <br /> <br />the taxes lost to the state in which the project is 10cated?,,134 <br /> <br />TIlis last question was relevant to Colorado in that a reservoir was to <br /> <br />be built on the Green River at Echo Park. T[,is reservoir, along with the pro- <br /> <br />posed Split Mountain Project, would flood not only the spectacular canyons of <br /> <br />Dinosaur National Monument but a significant portion of private lands in Colorado's <br /> <br />Moffat County, as well. The proposal was defeated in J956, due mostly to opp- <br />osition from the National Park Service and various environmental organizations.135 <br /> <br />But at the time of the UCRBCC the project I~S quite probable. <br /> <br />After Commissioner Stone repeated the' question addressing \Jhat provisions <br /> <br />\Jould be made for projects built in one state of benefit another, Breitenstein <br /> <br />pointed out its particular pertinence to Colorado, in that the morning before, <br /> <br />"in the Basin States Committee they adopted a resolution relative to the Split <br /> <br />Mountain Project and Echo Par1: Project." He stated tllat it WilS his concept of <br /> <br />the t\JO projects that they have a "particular value" for the state of Utah, in <br /> <br />being one of the units of the Cetral Utah Project, and that the Echo Park Project <br /> <br />"involves a damsite in Colorado I,hich will bacle up \Jater on the Green River and <br /> <br />the Yampa River in Colorado. TIle Split Mountain Project is one in Utah \Jhich <br /> <br /> <br />\Jill back up water in both Utah and Colorado.,,136 <br /> <br />Breitenstein argued that some provision should be made in the compact <br /> <br />concerning the loss to a state of t~eable land as a result of its being submerged <br /> <br />by a reservoir that would benefit another state. HE pointed out the situation <br /> <br />\lith Echo Parle, \lhich \{Quld submerge some taxable Colorado land in Moffat County: <br /> <br />But just take the situation of Moffat county now. I don't <br />lmow how much taxable property there is I{hich \lould be <br />covered by the Echo Park Reservoir but there will probably <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.