BOARD02516 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I MR. NELSON: I 121'1 ultimate situation as far as the water rights are concerned we do not know, but there is a possibility that we can store water there in any event. We are not ruling out the possi- . bili ty of storage in other possible sites. To that end we are cooperating with the Colo- rado River District to determine those sites. The Bureau of Reclamation is now in the process of studying the sites. We have certain field information already accumulated. It is a question now of trying to determine what site we have so far surveyed is the most feasible. Within a relatively short period of time we will know which site is the most feasible. On Monday I appeared in the District Court of Garfield County along with Mr. Barnard of the Colorado River Water Conservation District and Mr. Beise, the counsel for the Southeastern Water Conservation District. We again requested an extension of time for the adjudication pro- ceedings filed by the Southeastern District and when it was explained to Judge Darrow that we were attempting to work this matter out, he, without any hesitation, granted an extension of time to March 2, 1959. We have entered into a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation in the sum of $75,000 and that has been signed and executed, to re- view the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. I, at least, am very hopeful that we are now approach- ing the project in thepropermanner. Everyone has been extremely cooperative and there seems to be no good reason, at this time, why the pro- ject legislation cannot be rewritten, reintro- duced and passed at the next session of Congress. Are there any questions on it?' "I would like to ask about the sites on the Roaring Fork. What made them so expensive - the type of construction or why were they found infeasible 7"