WSPC04144 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0003'i7 -7- 2. The District had previously staGed that unless it can be shown that there is sufficient water in the Vallecito Reservoir to irrigate the lands within the 'esent boundaries of the District, the District should not be enlarged to include "diticnal land::: in ~ithe:r Colorado or- :Jen Hexic6; and We ....,-i.ll part.icularly object ;0 inclusion of additional lands if there is to be any more trans-mountain diver- sion of the waters of the Pine River or its tributaries into the Rio Grande Valley. ). Is there any reason why The Pine River Project like the FAien Proj ect and Paonia Project cannot .be authorized and construction commenced in 1951? We ask this question particularly in view of the fact that for over ten years more than i4;OOO acres of privately owned land within The Pir-e Hiver Irrigat{on District has been paying construction costs of the Vallecito Reservoir and cannot receive any water from the Reservoir until the construction of this Extension. 4. When the project is constructed it rdll be necessary to revise the existing contract with the United states in order to eliminate some of the unworkable features, and to extend the time of repayment of construction costs of the Reservoir in order that persons participating in the cost of the Extension vdll be able to meet their obligations. THE PINE RIVER IHHIGflTION DISTHICT By A. M. Emigh Attorney *****~it***n**i~***** COMMENTS OF THE LA PLATA WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT UPON THE PROPOSED REPORT OF THE BUHEAU OF RECL1\IIATION FOR DEVELOPHENT OF THE UPPER COlO- RADO RIVER BASIN --------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems to the Board of Directors, by whom the undersigned is authorized to make these comments, that the plan of the Bureau of Reclamation for the develop- ment of the Upper Colorado Basin is sound and economically feasible. The place- ment of a dividing point between the Upper and the LrnJer Dasin at Lee's Ferry has probably created some spirit of animosity between the Upper and Lower Basin States. As a representative of the Bureau of Reclamation aptly pointed out, the Lower Basin States receive a smooth flow of seven and one half w~llion acre feet per year average at Lees Ferry, whereas the Upper Basin States are forced by the very nature of the Colorado River Compact to accept as theirs, the uneven cycli c flow of water in the Colorado River. It appears to us without question, that there must be some form of hold- over storage on the upper reaches of the Colorado River in order best to utilize all of the water in the river, not only for the benefit of the Upper Basin but also of the Lower Basin States.