BOARD01635

• Board Meeting Date: 3/26/1945
• Description: Table of Contents and Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Minutes

il

,

reflected in the last part of Paragraph 41..0A Page 30, which 1s as
follows: "and that the estimated depletion allowanoe for potential
exportati on proj eots in Col.orado dO"p.o1;. ad~qllli't~ly refleot i:;he cp-
portunities and probabilities of suoh.diversions, and.are far below
i:;he possibilities of suoh developments in Colorado, if questions of
proj eotfeasibility and eoonomio jusi:;ificaUon be evaluated upon the
same basis as that employed for other oompetitive projects listed in
. the report."

The figures showing the amount of water in the Colorado River
above Lee's Ferry wi;threspeot to the. amount of water oonsumed in the
Upper Basin and the .water. diverted under existing transmountain di-
version projects does not bear out the statement of the Colorado Water
Conservation BoarGl above -quoted. From the Bureau of. Reol8lllation report
on Page 226 it appears that there was a~ average of 10,142,000 aore
feet of water at Lee's Ferry during the ten-year period fram 1931 tc
1940, li'nd under the Qolorado.River compaot the Lower Baein S;tli'tee are
entitled to 8,,00,000 acre feet cf this water and there will be an ad-
ditional charge of 750,000 aore feet of water 'against this average
annual flow if the Mexioo treaty is ratified, leaving 892,000 acre feet
fqr future and prospeotive uses in the Basin, and aoccrding to the
statement, the potential exportations byprojeets .are estimated at
2,132,000 acre feet annually. We respectfully submit that if these
figures as disolosed in the report and st.atement are oorreet that the
authors of the report ,and the authors of the statement above referred
to we,re quite .cptimistic about the amount of water, whioh is going to
be available for future exportation, especially atter taking into .con-
sideratl.on the li.mount of water- 'whioh will be required for future uses
within.the upper regions of the Basin itself.

We..were qu~te,surprised to read Paragraph,2 on Page 32 of your
statement, wherein it is stated: "Present estimates discloee the op-
portunities of diverting an average of 800,000 acre feet annually fram
the Gunnison river," when the report itself disoloses that during the
tlln,,:,year;period from1931.tC?194D .there...as an aotual average annual
flow of but 967,000 sorCI feet in the Gunnison river above the Gunnison
tunnel, and a~rgin flow of but 1,020,000 aore feet average annual
flow, and according to the ret>ort the estimated average annual wateT
oonsumption of the Gunnison river is 3114,000 aere..feet of water eaoh
year. In view of the preeent annual oonsumpti on ':If. ..ater . from the
Gunnison riveT and the estimated potential consumption, we aTe at a
loss to understand where the.800,000.ao,Te feetllJl!lU8lly will be found
in. the Gunnison river that oan be dive~ed:to the Arkansas valley.
Nowhere in ,the ,report and nowhere in the statement of the Colorado
Water ConservatiQn Board have we been able to find any figures. of the
present or estimated future average flow in the Gunnison river to
support this contention.

In Paragraph ,2 of Page 32 we find this statement: "When the
project investigations.are oompleted, the d~8igns and operating plans
are expected to disclose that stream fishing will be improved, if
possible, and will be augmented by lake or reservoir fishing, and that
projeots of benefit to the Lower Gunnison Valley will be installed as