My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC02593
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
15000-15999
>
WSPC02593
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:20:01 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:27:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8040.950
Description
Section D General Studies - General Water Studies
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
1/6/1956
Author
Ivan C Crawford
Title
Report on Western Slope Surface Water Study - Actions of Conferences-Committees-and CWCB Board - Synopses of Studies - Surveys for Projects - Expenditure of Funds
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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 />001503 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"11. Denver, the Capitol city of Colorado, desires to divert <br />water from the Blue River, a tributary of the Colorado River, for <br />use for municipal and industrial purposes in the metropolitan <br />Denver area. The rights of Denver to take and divert such water <br />are alleged to be in conflict with rights for the use of water <br />stored in Green Mountain Reservoir and taken through the Green <br />Mountain power plant for the generation of power. Green Hountain <br />Dam, Reservoir and Power Plant constitute a unit of the Colorado- <br />Big Thompson Project of the United States Bureau of Reclamation. <br />The controversy over the relative'rights of Denver and the Green <br />r10untain Project are in litigation in a law suit now pending in <br />the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and in another law suit <br />pending in the United States District Court for the District of <br />Colorado. It would be improper for this Board to attempt to invade <br />the process of the courts or to influence the pending litigation. <br />The Board has no intention of doing either. The feasibility of <br />the proposed Denver-Blue River diversion depends, among other <br />things, on the outcome of this litigation, or on some alternative <br />thereto which satisfactorily protects the Colorado-Big Thompson <br />Project. Upon the conditio~ that th~ ~egal availability 9f ~ <br />reasonable quantity of water i2_~ the Denver-Blue River diversio~ <br />bEl established, eithelZ. ,by litigation o~ ~ other arranqement, <br />an.d the condition that such B!9ject be 9therwise feasible, th~ <br />Board approves the Denver-Bl~~ Fiy~ Project for inclusion,~~ ~ <br />~.rticipatinq proiect i~ th~_ authorjzation pt th~ Colorado River <br />~torage proiect QL for such o~~e~ Federal le(islative or administra- <br />:.li ve action as may pe !:.e~t!"d ):ly J:)enver. Emphasi s suppliedl <br /> <br />"12. The Board recommends that Denver and the representatives <br />of the West Slope in Colorado make every effort to arrive at a <br />harmonious solution of the unfortunate transmountain diversion <br />controversy which for years has created dissension in Colorado. <br />The Board pledges that it and its staff will be ready to assist <br />in the amicable settlement of this prolonged conflict. <br /> <br />"13. The Director of the Board and the Colorado members of <br />the Upper Colorado River Commission are directed to do all things <br />necessary and proper to effectuate this resolution." <br /> <br />Paragraph 11 is of special importance because, based on <br /> <br />this, provision was made in several of the Colorado River Storage <br />Project bills for Federal Departments to deal with Denver with <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />regard to water and land under those departments. <br />S. 500, 84th Congress, 1st Session, contained a section <br />which reads as follows: <br /> <br />-11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.