BOARD02250

• Board Meeting Date: 8/6/1951
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I

. - -

,.31

Board. These statements by the Aspen delegates were ordered to be filed in the office of
the Colorado Water Conservation Boar9'

Judge Dan H. Hughes suggested that the proposed Fryingpan-Arkansas-Project develop-
ment, and the procedure folluwed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board over a period
of more than two years in the review and study of this proposed project development be
explained to the Aspen Group.

Thereupon Director Stone explained the project, the need for the proposed develop-
ment for domestic water supplies and irrigation in the Arkansas Valley and the procedure
which had been authorized by the Boar9 and followed through the instrumentality of a
Policy and Review Committee, made up of representatives from 8astern and Western Colo-
rado and of the Water 1l0ard, for the purpose of formulating operating principles for the
protection of present and prospective uses of water in Western Colora90 in connection
with the project.

Mr. Breitenstein read the resolution of the Colorado River Water Conservation
District and of the Southwes~rn Water Conservation District, being Western Slope
organizations created under state statute, relating to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
ft was explained that Pitkin County was part of the Colorado River Water Conservation
District and is represented on the Board of that District. (These resolutions appear
in the minutes of the Celor~do Water Conservation Board of February. 22, 1951, pp.260-
262 Vol. II)

. Thereupon there came on for .consideration by the Board Item 2 of the agenda,
. "Consideration of Official Comments of the State of Colorado on the Proposed Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project."

Director Stone read a preliminary draft of such comments and offered them for
consideration by the Board.

There ensued extensive discussion of the first paragraph on Page 4 of the comments.
This paragraph concerned the interpretation ymich Colorado makes of the resolution passed
by the Arkansas River Compact Administration, inserted in the prelimL<a.ry draft of Colo-
rado State comments. The Board wished to make it clear that the Arkansas Compact Adminis-
tration had such interest and could follow the procedure set forth in its resolution only
to the extent necessary to aid in maintaining the rights, interests and obligations of
Colorado and Kansas under the Compact; and that water users in Kansas, affected by the
terms of the Arkansas River Compact, could offer no objection to the plans for the
operation, or the actual operation, of the proposed project so long as the State of
Colorado complies with the Compact.

Thereupon John Beaty moved:

That the first paragraph an Page 4 be changed to read as follows:

Colorado interprets and understands that Paragraph three (3) of
the Resolution of the Arkansas River Compact Administration is con-
trolled by Paragraph four (4) thereof;' and that the words "Affected
water users" in said Paragraph three (3) mean only water users in the
State of Colorado so long as Colorado complies with the terms of said
Compact.