|
<br />.
<br />
<br />,
<br />\
<br />.
<br />
<br />oco:s~
<br />
<br />-:l-
<br />
<br />Later Region 4 of the Bureau of Reclamation submitted a further report,
<br />dated September, 1950, dropping the words "Interim Report" and designated it as the
<br />"Colorado River Storage Project and Part'-cipating Projects, Upper Colorado River
<br />::1...""..;.....11 Th............. "'.............","'....o.rl ....n +ha f"""1'"lnt. "f' t.h;.~ 1 ~~t. r"p.nn,...t thE'! rIorrls "ProDosed Report
<br />......,...........L~~. .u.......L '-' ""t't''-'............... ........ -..."" - - -...- -- -._-- ---- - - -...- - - . - - ---~--
<br />of Regional Director for Official Review Only, Subject to Hevision". In submit~inq
<br />this last report, Regional Director Larson stated that the states would be allowed
<br />thirty days to submit further comments and recommendations. This last report was
<br />submitted by the Bureau after the Colorado ITater Conservation Board, in its July
<br />10, 1950 meeting, had refused, as hereinafter explained, to change its former in-
<br />:ormal comments with respect to storage on the Gunnison River. After receiving R
<br />few copies of this report, they were distributed to the members of the Colorado
<br />Water Conservation Board and engineering adyisors.
<br />
<br />The Director, upon receiving the September, 1950 report, contacted
<br />Director Larson and later the Branch of Project Planning in Washington and ex-
<br />plained that questions, such as proposed Gunnison River Storage, in the project
<br />plan, could not be resolved in thirty days by Colorado. It appeared in the Septem-
<br />ber, 1950 report that the proposed Bridgeport dam (designated as "Vlbitewater" unit
<br />in the report) was recommended by the Bureau as one of the main units in the com-
<br />prehensive development plan. The Director was told by both Mr. Larson and the
<br />Branch of Project Planning in Washington that the principal purpose of again send-
<br />ing out the report for review was to obtain technical review and that major ques-
<br />tj,ons of policy, such as project units, could be reserved for the formal comments
<br />of the State after the report of the Regional Office was cleared by the Department
<br />of Interior and sent out for final official State comments. Accordingly, Director
<br />Larson was advised by the Director of the Water Board that the State of Colorado
<br />offered no further comments at this time but reserved such comments for final re-
<br />view, under Section 1 of the 1944 Flood Control Act.
<br />
<br />In the meantime the Board's staff has been studying the last report and
<br />has held conferences with Director Larson at Salt Lake City and with the area
<br />office at Grand Junction, Colorado on the matter, largely in connection .vith en-
<br />gineering detail. In the meantime the report of September, 1950 has been sent by
<br />the Regional Office for review at the Washington level of the Bureau of Reclamaticr.
<br />and for consideration of the Secretary of Interior. It is not knovm when such re..
<br />view in Washington will be concluded and the Secretary will send out the report fOl
<br />the final official comments of the States. Efforts are being made by all of the
<br />Upper Colorado River States and by the Upper Colorado River Commission, through
<br />its Secretary, J. G. Will, to obtain a submission of the final report near the
<br />first of the year 1951. Such final submission, under the 1944 Flood Control Act,
<br />allows 90 days for the submission of official State com~ents.
<br />
<br />2. Action of the Colorado Water ConservM,','Jl" Board on July 10, 1950 With
<br />Respect to Proposed J\mendment of its Informal St;;'~-r; ;,;r.;;:ier;ts. At a meeting of the"
<br />Colorado Water Conservation Board, held on July':c.;,--li)~:o, at Denver, Colorado,
<br />representatives of Region 4, Bureau of Rocla~ation, and of the'Branch of Project
<br />Planning, appeared and recommended that the Board select the ,fuitewater storage
<br />unit, near the mouth of the Gunnison River, for inclusion as an initial unit for
<br />authorization under the Colorado River Storage plan. As an initial unit such
<br />selection would hilve meant that this unit would receive authorization for construc-
<br />tion along with Echo Park and other units wh:\,ch constitute the so-called "Holdover
<br />
|