BOARD01567

• Board Meeting Date: 5/1/1975
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

of the state of Colorado, or others that could give background into this
. controversy, before the general discussion?

Mr. Sta~leton: I think Hr. Sherman would be very happy to comment, would
you not.

Mr. Sherman: Well, Frank, I am not totally certain of what you are I
alluding to, but let me say one thing which I think is important. It '
is a slight correction of what Mr. Brooks said. That is that there is
no policy being set forth by the state of Colorado that would oppose
energy projects, per se. That is clearly not the intent. In this
particular case, it was the Governor's feeling that there were signifi-
cant agricultural needs and municipal needs in the Uncompahgre Valley,
upper and lower, which were not being met, and that the water from the
Dallas Creek project, in this particular case, would ~e very important
to the region for those purposes.

At the same time the Governor felt very strongly that in this particular
valley the location of a power facility would not be in'~the best
interests of the region or the best interest of the state. So I do not
feel that this action carries any long range implication for other proj-
ects in the state. The Governor's expression was limited to the Dallas
Creek project alone.

Mr. Stapleton: Are there any additional questions or comments from,
first, the members of the board?

(No response.)

Mr. Stapleton: How about members of the audience?

(No response.)

Mr. Stapleton: Anticipating that we ought to be working on a resolution,
some of us did work on a resolution which I will try for starters. The
resolution, and I will read it slowly, "The Water Conservation Board
pledges its full support to the Dallas Creek project and to securing.
construction funds for the project from the Congress of the United
States. In so doing, we hereby request the Bureau of Reclamation to
reformulate the plan for the Dallas Creek project, consistent with the
objectives contained in the Governor's letter of April 23, 1975,
regarding transferring 24,000 acre-feet of water presently designated
for the Kemmerer Coal Company to alternative uses, which will serve the
agricultural, municir,al, light industrial and recreational needs in the I
following priorities '. Then, if you will look at the priorities of the
Bureau of Reclamation.. I would suggest that it then read, going down to
that Priority No.2, 'to utilize a portion or portions or all of the
24,000 acre-feet to reduce irrigation shortages within the service area
of the existing Uncompahgre project". Next, "If the full 24,000 acre-
feet yield is not required, then consideration should be given to
supplying an area of new land west of the present Uncompahgre area",
then, "The remaining yield available, if any, would be used as follows:
to increase the inactive pool now 15,000 acre-feet as explained in the

-38-