Laserfiche WebLink
<br />260 <br /> <br />indicated a view that there should be no particular objection to the proposed <br />Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and that it might well be recognized and approved <br />as a program of immediate necessity. He explained, ho..ever, that the ,iestern <br />Colorado interests felt that there should be no endorsement by the people of <br />that area of further transmountain diversion projects, authorized and financed <br />as Federal projects, until there had been further and sufficient surveys and <br />investigations on the West Slope to determine potential uses in that area of <br />Colorado River ..ater. He urged that the Board should reiterate and intensify <br />its efforts to expedite surveys and investigations by the Bureau of Reclamation <br />on' the West Slope. <br />-I. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />There ens\.~d, discussion concerning the resolution of the Colorado <br />River '/later Conservation District Board which stated, "that no further trans'" <br />mountain diversions fromthe natural Colorado River Basin should be approved and <br />authOrized until the surveys described in Section IV above are comp~eted and <br />the need for.the use of water in -:Iestern Colorado has been determined." (Section <br />IV refers to Article IV, entitled 'Effect of Approval of Project Report" of the <br />rep6rtcof the Policy and Review Committee on the proposed Fryingpan-Arkansas . <br />Project.) It was brought out that such a provision obviously could only refer <br />to "federally financed" transmountain diversion projects. Judge Hughes requested <br />that the records ShOlv.that the resolution of the Colorado River rlater Conser- . <br />vation District Board has been revised to include the words "federally financed". <br />Dan Hunter requested that the records show the same revision and inclusion of <br />the words "federally financed" in the resolution passed by the Sathwestern <br />Water Conservation District Board. Judge Hughes, it was explained, is a mem- <br />ber of the Colorado River .'iater Conservation District Board and Dan Hunter is a <br />member and Chairman of the Southwestern Water Conservation District Board. <br />These men assumed the responsibility of seeing to it that their Boards amended <br />their respective resolutions as above indicated. <br />'" <br />~ <br /> <br />Director Stone moved that, to make ~ne record clear, the <br />.resolutions pertaining to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, passed <br />by the Colorado River ~ater Conservation District Board and the <br />Southwestern Water Conservation District Board, and as amended to <br />include the words "federally financed", be included and made a <br />part- of the record of tIns meetin:; of the Colorado ;i'ater Conser- <br />vation Board. The motion was seconded by John ~. Beaty and on vote <br />being taken, the motion unanimously carried and ~as declared passed. <br />" <br />The resolutions of the Colorado River Water Consel~ation District <br />Board .and _of the Southwestern .Iater Conservation 'District Board are as follows: <br /> <br />"A meeting of the Board of Directors of The Colorado Hi Vel" WateJ7 Con-" <br />servation District was held at Grand Junction, Colorado, on Fehruary 19, 1951 <br />at the request of Western Colorado members of the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Joard to consider and discuss the proposed FrJ~ngpan-Arkandas Diversion pro- <br />ject, formerly referred to as the initial phase of the Gunnison-Arkansas pro- <br />ject. All members of the Board were present except Andrew Lindstrom. <br /> <br />"The following resolution was offered by Charles R. Neill: <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"RESOLUTION <br /> <br />"The Board of llirectors of the Colorado River ;Vater Conservation <br />District in order to be cooperative in the furtherance of the policy of the State <br />