Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~utJ.n~ <br /> <br />-34- <br /> <br />Wa,tel"shed Committee. The Resolution does appear to set forth a number of dis- <br />advant!!ges. At the same time, we honestly believe that the Gunnison County Com- <br />mitt.ee is endeavoring to consider the problems fairly, altruistically arid ui':oad:ly <br />\~th respect to the benefits that will result from the construction of the dam to <br />0ther people in Western Colorado, the state and the Nation, and it is upon this <br />basis that we still hope that a unified conclusion can be reached between Gunni- <br />son, Montrose and Delta Counties. <br /> <br />Our over-all conclusion is that the Currecanti Reservoir is the key to the <br />,t\,ture development of the Gunnison River and that unless this project is included <br />lD the initial phase of the construction of the hold-over projects, that a very <br />"erious and probably successful attempt will be made to put the waters of the <br />Gunnison ~iver to a beneficial use elsewhere before the water can be put to a <br />beneficial use in its present locality. We know what happened to the Roaring Fork. <br />F~0m the point of view of firm power prOduction, aid to participating irrigation <br />;':c'ojects, River control, silt control, and for the future development of other <br />;'Gwp.r and hold-over projects on the Gunnison River, a11d other benefits, it is our <br />r.onclusion that the construction of the Currecanti lieservoir is of paramount im- <br />portance and transcends any local losses that may result from its construction. <br /> <br />In general, we concur \~th Gunnison County that the individuals affected <br />should be fully compensated; that any dispossessed stock men should be given <br />preference in the selection of newly developed lands; that resort owners should <br />be given preferences for sites on the Lake; and that a definite understanding <br />should be reached to retain the waters of the Taylor Park Reservoir in the local <br />area and that the people of Gunnison County should be given all of the protection <br />that is economically and engineeringly feasible. <br /> <br />In connection with the requests specified in your Resolution, a group of <br />Delta County representatives sat in with the Montrose group in arriving at their <br />conclusions and at the present we are inclined to agree .vith them on their <br />cp8cifio comments. We are inclined to believe that the Gunnison Committee is <br />'t ,"!dng too dark a view of the effect on recreation potentialities and from a tax <br />point of view, we are unable to find any credit given for the tax revenue that no <br />.1oubt will be derived from the use of at least a million dollars worth of con- <br />struction machinery being brought into the County during the entire construction <br />period. It also appears to us that at least some of the members of the Gunnison <br />Committee are not familiar with the number of livestock and assessed valuations <br />shown by the 1950 Gunnison T~ Roll. <br /> <br />It occurs to us that there is much room for better understanding of the <br />problems connected with this project between the peoples of these CoUnties and <br />subject to your desires, we feel that it would be worth while to have a meeting <br />of the Gunnison County Committee of 9, the Montrose County Committee of 6, and the <br />Delta County Committee of 9, to make an honest effort to unify our support of this <br />project. We know that all of these Committees have ;,ut in hours and days of time <br />on this problem; that their work has been done in good faith and for the benefit <br />Dc the whole rather than for the benefit of any particular section or County. <br />