Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />460 <br /> <br />- 5 - <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />9. In view of the foregoing, the State of Colorado <br />approves the report, with the following comments regarding her <br />position. <br /> <br />a. At the meeting of the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board held in Montrose, Colorado on September 6, 1956, the <br />following motion was unanimously adopted: <br /> <br />"WHEREAS: The construction of Wagon <br />Wheel Gap Dam, a unit of the San Luis <br />Valley Project on the Rio Grande in <br />Colorado, was authorized by the <br />Secretary of the Interior on February <br />1, 1940, and <br /> <br />WHEREAS: a supplemental report <br />prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation <br />is now in the office of the Secretary <br />of the Interior for action, <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the <br />Colorado State Water Conservation Board, <br />that the Secretary of the Interior be <br />requested to approve said report and <br />request the appropriation of funds to <br />complete the construction of Wagon Wheel <br />Gap Dam, on the basis of the 1940 <br />authorization." <br /> <br />b. The Weminuche Pass Division, which was found <br />infeasible by the Bureau of Reclamation's study, stated to be <br />without prejudice to future investigation, is still considered <br />a potential project by the State. Water supply criteria <br />used in the Bureau of Reclamation's studies could possibly <br />be modified, and coupled with a review of design estimates, <br />might result in a finding of feasibility for this Division <br />of the authorized San Luis Valley Project. <br /> <br />c. With respect to the Rio Grande Division, and <br />particularly Wagon Wheel Gap Reservoir, the unit would come under <br />terms of the Rio Grande Compact and be operated according to the <br />applicable provisions thereof. In light of certain statements <br />contained in the report, the Bureau of Reclamation's interpretation <br />of this Compact apparently differs in some respects from that <br />of Colorado, and the State wishes to clarify her interpretation: <br /> <br />f <br />