My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01033
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01033
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:57:25 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:48:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/13/1963
Description
Minutes
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />JOO'fo <br /> <br />Our major problem on the Narrows project <br />is that we simply do not have. and will not <br />have. enough water in the South Platte Valley <br />to distribute throughout the length of the <br />Valley to take care of even all of the present <br />irrigated acreage. The most critical area we <br />consider in the South Platte Valley is the area <br />covered by the Riverside Irrigation District, <br />which is generally north of the river in the <br />vicinity of Fort Morgan; Fort Morgan being just <br />off the map. right down here. (Mr. Sparks used <br />the quad map to point out the different areas <br />he referred to.) This irrigated area north of <br />the river is critically Short of water and <br />possesses some good farming land. It is under <br />the Riverside Irrigation District. Our problem <br />was how to stretch this water from the Riverside <br />District on down to the North Sterling District <br />which is also short of water. That's in the <br />vicinity north of sterling. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In the original Narrows plan there was <br />simply no way to stretch the water. We computed <br />about 85,000 acre-feet of water available and <br />it would not stretch from the Riverside to the <br />North Sterling. It could not be done. If you <br />included one you had to leave out the other. <br />And this has been the big fight over the years <br />about this project. The Riverside people and <br />the Bijou people (who can also use additional <br />water; they are in the area south of the river). <br />have insisted that the reservoir be built up <br />here at the Weld County site. Then the water <br />could be turned by direct diversion through <br />their existing canal systems, that is. the <br />Riverside and the Bijou, and fully satisfy their <br />needs. But when we talked about serving the <br />full needs of the upper area. then we encountered <br />opposition from the lower area. So this is the <br />tug-of-war that we have been in since 1946. and <br />still have not solved. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In an attempt to solve the problem, our <br />staff and the Bureau of Reclamation have repeat- <br />edly met in conferences as to how we could <br />better the plan. We finally decided. in looking <br /> <br />-'--- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.