WSP00170 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

About this time there was great concern regarding a pressing issue to be resolved through many years of litigation, Denver's claims on the Blue River in Summit County. Denver began con- sidering Blue River diversions in 1914, made filings in 1923. published a different plan in 1927, made subsequent filings, then the Dillon Reservoir was added to the scheme in 1942. It was the River District's concern over transmountain diver- sions that kept the board active in all the Blue River litigation with Denver and with Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the United States. The result of many years in the courts was the Blue River decree and stipulation, an agreement that settled a number of very complex legal issues relating to water rights and operations of the Colorado-Big Thompson Pro- ject. Denver's Dillon ReservoirlRoberts Tunnel System and Col- orado Spring's Hoosier Pass System. A good measure of protec- tion was accomplished for Western Colorado through the per- sistence of the River District. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT DECADE Ihen World War II came to an end, the Colorado River District was coming up on its 10th year of existence. As the District began its second decade, Gunnison County was being lin- ed up for a diversion project which it was not sure it wanted. the proposed Gunnison-Arkansas project; the long, drawn-out court case involving Denver's claims to the Blue River was yet to be settled; the Curecanti storage project on the Gunnison River was in the process of creation; and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to divert water from the Gunnison, Crystal, Roaring Fork and Fry- ingpan Rivers was surfacing. All of the above. along with other concerns, required the attention of the River District board. Several decisive actions were taken by the board resulting in long term benefits. 6 On the Blue River claims there was the ongoing search for some compromise settlement. If there was ever to be a com- promise between these spirited adversaries, River District direc- tors set out certain terms: Denver would accept a statewid,\-. policy whereby the exportation of water from the Western Slope....,. of Colorado to the Eastern Slope would be conditioned upon the (.,:' construction of suitable and sufficient facilities to ensure the pro- ~n tection of present vested rights and also make provisions for the reasonable future development of the Western Slope. This con- cept would be difficult to implement as history records. With regard to the concerns of Gunnison County, the people there requested specific information on w hat the effects would be to them of the proposed Gunnison-Arkansas transmountain diver- sion. In reacting to their request, the River District board sought the cooperation of the Colorado River Conservation Board in do- ing a study to determine if there was sufficient water available to meet anticipated needs for the region and for diversions to the East Slope. Later. the District would also adopt a resolution re- questing the Bureau of Reclamation to make a survey of stream fishing and recreation use in the Gunnison River area with par- ticular attention paid to what effect proposed trans-basin diver- sions would have upon these resources. At this point in time, experience had shown River District Directors and staff that if diversion projects were feasible and Eastern Colorado people were willing to pay for them they could be built. However. experience had also shown them that the pur- pose of the River District was to take proper steps to adequately protect present and future water supply for the West Slope. This was River District policy then. as it is today. The Gunnison-Arkansas Project would divert water out of the Gunnison River drainage to southeast Colorado and the Arkansas Valley. To protect West Slope interests, it was important that the most skilled negotiators represent the River District in East- West negotiations on this critical issue. The two who led the charge in many a hard-fought battle were Hume S. White, Eagle County director, and General Counsel for the District, Frank Delaney. They are credited with the demise of the unpopular Gunnison-Arkansas Project. In the background and taking shape during these negotiations