Supplements 1-3 of Views, Comments and Recommendations on narrows Dam Project

Home Browse Search

. (Cant.) LUPTON BOTTOM DITCH COMPANY PLATTE VALLEY IRRIG. COMPANY B Y RM Sorchet, President BY Byron D. Chranut LUPTON MEAD04 S DITCH COMPANY' Vice President BY Ray Sorchet President 1 DITCH COMPANY BY M. L. Winslow WELD COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COUNCIL NARRO? :`S Z"fe oppose the Narrows Dam and favor the expenditure of this money for up— stream storage because: 1. The Narrows Dam once built, and with adequate filings to assure any sort of economic use would forever prevent subsequent diversion of these flood waters for beneficial use at any point upstream, because of the priority of the Narrows filing. Namely, The Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company$ and the Henrylyn Irrigation district. It would also be an obstacle tQ an effective flood protection program for the large area of Northern Colorado above the darn, 2. The utilization of Narrows water remains a +natter which can be seriously questioned. The 30 acres of new land to be irrigated have not been designated by the Reclamation Bureau and many familiar with the valley bejoW, claim they are not available. The supplementary irrigation value can be seriously questioned. It is certainly not as represented by the Bureau, as much of the .and at pr esent irrigated below the dam, needs no supplemental, water and return water from full development upstream would supply adequate water for alb, 3. The often repeated claim of legal necessity of a lake Tour doyq to ptore return flow water from the Colorado River Diversion has not been substantiated by quoting the statute or contracts involved. This has been regt4ested by meld County Farm Organizations. This water can, and will be put to bansfUial use quite a number of times, whether or not this storage is built 4. There is a large acreage of irrigated land above the loam and outside Northern Colorado Conservation District, badly in need of more water. Ditch systems are already built and much storage space is available with small intake ditches unsuitable for storing flood water rapidly. This assures a goad market without the cost of building an entire new ditch system, 5. Dam sites are available — surveys have been made and estimates of cost. Records show that approximately half of the flood water lost to Colorado at the Stateline could be stored near the foothills. b. No comparison has been made by the Reclamation bureau or the Colorado Y ater Conservation Board of the relat1ve value pf �opthills storage as compared with the storage at the Narrows. They have djsp6grgged us in the attempt to make - u - _h a comparison. tije have a letter to prove ' th4a,