BOARD02250

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

I

I

33

August 7, 1951

The Secretary of the Interior

Sir:

On behalf of the State of Colorado and pursuant to Section 1 of the Act of
December 17, 1944 (58 Stat.887), there are here,vith transmitted the comments, views
and recommendations of the State of Colorado concerning the initial development of the
Gunnison-Arkansas Project, Roaring' Fork Diversion, heing Project Planning Report No.
7-8a.49-1, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, dated January, 1950.

These comments, views and recommendations are submitted under the authority of
Chapter 265, Session Laws of Colorado, 1937, creating the Colorado Water Conservation
Board, and definLng its functions in accordance with the designation of such Board by
the Governor of the State of Colorado pursuant to Section 1 of the Act of December 17,
1944 (58 Stat. 887) as the official State agency to act in such matters.

The comments, views and reconunendations of Colorado submitted herewith are as
follows:

1. Colorado recognizes that the waters of the Arkansas River in the Colorado portion
of the Upper Arkansas River Basin are over-appropriated and that serious loss in crop
production on presently irrigated farm land results. Stabilized agricultural economy
in the area requires supplemental vmter supplies. Additional quantity and better quality
of domestic and municipal water are critically needed in the Arkansas Valley, Colorado,
for the cities of Colorado Springs, Pueblo and vRrious Valley towns. New sources must
be found if necessary and dependable water supplies for a growing population are to be
provided. The best economy and the most efficient use of limited sources of water require
multiple-use project development which will serve the needs of agriculture, requirements
for domestic and municipal water supplies, flood control, the preservation of recrea-
tional and fish and wildlife values and the production of hydroelectric power. Neither
further retirement of presently irrigated land to meet necessary and pressing municipal
requirements for water nor project development designed to serve a single purpose would
be consonant vdth the most desirable economic advancement of Colorado, or with the high-
est utilization of its limited water supplies.

2. ColoradO concurs in the findings of the Project Report that the project des-
cribed therein is engineeriDgly feasible, economically justified, and financially feasible,
and that the proposed plan for the payment of reimbursable capital costs is in accordance
vdth the Federal reclamation law.

3. The allocation of capital costs as between the various project features, inclUding
a nonreimbursable allocation to flood control and fish and vdldlife preservation, is
considered reasonable.

4. It is recognized that the allocation to the various project purposes of annual
operation, maintenance and replacement costs has been made to correspond to the allocation
of capital costs. Colorado recommends that an authorization of the project shall not
preclude a readjustment of operation, maintenance and replacement charges as between
municipal and domestic users and pewrer and irrigation users vmich might more accurately
reflect the actual use of water by said users.