BOARD00261 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3874 to the Lower Basin. OUr burden, in Colorado, is 48.75 percent of all the water we produce which we have got to send down to the Lower Basin and that's a very heavy burden. Under the procedures, we have been build- ing projects in these other three basins but we have not built any in the White-Yampa Basin and that puts us at the tail end which is a very dangerous position to have with respect to the Lower Basin water. We have already given half of our water to Utah and if the Yampa-White River Basin has to make a contri- bution to the waters of the Lower Basin far and above the other basins which are gaining a right in perpetuity to their own water by building projects (and that's the only way you can get a right) then the White-Yampa River Basin is in very bad shape. I Those are the arguments I want you folks to think about with respect to the Juniper Project. I notice that Mr. Sparks recommends that Juniper take 5th place on the priorities. I feel that it ought to retain its first place. It has first place now by action of this Board and I feel that it ought to retain that first place insofar as priorities are con- cerned and in our recommendations to the Bureau of Reclamation that it should be in first place. I notice.that Mr. Sparks, on March 5th, in a document that I received f~om his office, suggests that maybe Juniper and the Great Northern Project, which is another worthy project in northwestern Colorado and in the Yampa-\Vhite Valley, could be combined. I would be glad to favor that sort of a solution to that very local problem, although it's not a serious local problem in northwestern Colo- rado. Northwestern Colorado; the Yampa Valley especially, has been strongly in favor of Juniper for a long, long time. I have here, thanks to your Board member Ted MCCandless, petitions signed by the voters of that area. I