BOARD00852 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

212 survey for the protection of the Town of Dolores, Colorado, but not for the Dolores River Basin upstream from Dolores. The modification resulted from additional information on property values' submitted by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. I The Director made his report on the Chatfield Reservoir Project, an- nouncing he had followed out the Board's instructions of conferring with local, affected interests. The initial meetings with key individuals resulted in a decision to hold local hearings in the various communities, to ascertain local opinion on whether the Board's previous comments endorsing only flood control storage should be revised to recommend inclusion of irrigation storage capacity in the proposed Chatfield reservoir. The Director reported that no action should be taken by the Board until the results of the local meetings were available. Regarding Item 3 on the agenda, the Director stated that the Board had made no state recommendations on Gunnison River development, due to local indecision as to what facilities would be preferred, and some questions relat- ing to fish and wildlife protection. He said, however, that the State was interested in having some develo]:lllent proceed on the Gunnison River, along with initial phases of the Colorado River Storage project. J. R. Riter, spokesman for the Bureau, explained and compared the various reservoir sites which had been considered in the proposed Gunnison River development, explaining that selection of sites was influenced to an extent by the fact that the Black Canyon National Monwnent is located in the area. Further explanation of the Bureau's attention to the problem was ma~by C. B. Jacbbson, of the Region 4 office at Salt Lake City. Mr. Jacobson said thatit was urged by the Region 4 office that the State of Colorado make known i td desires, regarding the Gunnison River storage phase as a part of the Colorado River Storage project, so that tne Director's report to Washington might incornorate the State 1 s -recommendations. He said the Director's report was expected to be su1:mitted soon to Washington., Mr. Riter commented that in the absence of local recommendations, the Bureau would have to proceed in general tems in its report to Washing- ton, describing the possibilities of power drops and power sites so far in- vestigated. He said that from a strictly engineering analysis, the Bureau might favor Curecanti as an initial development, inasmuch as some program is vital in the area to carry out a schedule of power development. Board Member Dan Hughes commented that, in his opinion, the State of Colorado should not go on record approving any particular development on the Gunnison River, until all prospects and recommendations have been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed. I