Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />I- <br />N <br />N <br />C) <br />o <br /> <br />,-,' <br /> <br />3. The operation of the permanent pool would not be a <br /> <br />problem because Colorado has lots of experience at this type of <br /> <br />thing - it operates most of the reservoirs in a similar manner. <br /> <br />4. State Statutes offer sufficient protection in <br /> <br />changing point of diversion and use. <br /> <br />5. The only lakes in the area that are suitable for <br /> <br />development are privately owned. <br /> <br />This time the Board decided to support the motion. <br /> <br />The bill, H.R. 7162, was introduced in the House for <br /> <br />the third time after being tabled twice because of objections <br /> <br />from the same group and finally became a law in October 1965. <br /> <br />The L.aw offers maximum safeguards to other water users because it <br /> <br />requires: <br /> <br />1. The State to purchase the water rights necessary to <br /> <br />establish and maintain the permanent pool. <br /> <br />2. The rights of the irrigators in colorado and Kansas <br /> <br />are not to be diminished or impaired. <br /> <br />3. Nothing in the Law means that recreation uses are <br /> <br />to be given preference to irrigation uses. <br /> <br />4. The operating criteria of the permanent pool must <br /> <br />be approved in writing by the Chief of Engineers - U. S. Army, <br /> <br />the Colorado State Engineer, the Arkansas River Compact Admin- <br /> <br />istration and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. <br /> <br />-10- <br />