My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01737
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01737
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:06:28 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:01:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
6/26/1955
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.
/
29
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 />I <br /> <br />HR . S~!ITH : <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />7 '443 <br /> <br />If I had the slightest inkling Denver had that <br />in mind, I would never have agreed. A great <br />number of these participating projects in <br />Western Colorado are vulnerable to transmountain <br />diversion which will adversely affect them. <br />This leads to the conclusion that one of two <br />courses is open to Western Colorado - either <br />through the offices of the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board to negotiate with these people <br />or western Colorado must by all possible means <br />oppose every effort for transmountain diversion. <br /> <br />I am firmly convinced there are alternates to <br />these schemes of Denver. Any study we have had <br />under consideration was halted when Denver <br />announced she was going to build the enlarged <br />Williams Fork. I think you can see I am talking <br />from the standpoint of the Parshall Project. <br /> <br />I have seen attorneys and engineers in great <br />numbe'rs spend time and taxpayers' money in <br />litigation. I have seen a bitterness develop <br />between Denver and the Western Slope. I would <br />like to ask the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board to see to it that in the future when such <br />things develop they sit down and work out plans <br />so Western Colorado can live even if Denver <br />gets what she needs. I would like to see the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board adopt a <br />policy which would see if we can work out a plan <br />that is for the good of everyone. I believe <br />Hr. Smith of the Conservancy District can give <br />the figures b show what the loss of the Parshall <br />Project will do to Western Colorado." <br /> <br />"The development of the Parshall Project would <br />provide for the irrigation of new land and also <br />provide some supplemental water. The U.S. <br />Bureau of Reclamation plan had a reservoir of <br />40,000acre feet capacity at the Ute Park site. <br /> <br />The plan would provide for irrigation of <br />24,500 acres of new land and 3100 acres of supplemental <br />land. The Williams Fork Reservoir constructed <br />by the City o/Denver, has a capacity of about <br />6600 acre feet. This was built as a replacement <br />feature for the Jones Pass Diversion. During the <br />20 years since the Jones Pass sy.tem has operated <br />it has developed only about 7,000 acre feet <br />on the average per year. It is planned by the <br />City of Denver to expand the present collection <br />system of the City of Denver and take the water <br />through the Jones Pass Tunnel and re-divert <br />through a tunnel to Vasquez Creek and then back <br />through the Hoffat Tunnel to the City of Denver. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.