WSP00170

• File Number: 8210.310.40
• Description: Colorado River Basin Organizations and Entities - Colorado River Water Conservation District - Meeti
• State: CO
• Basin: Western Slope
• Date: 5/3/1988
• Author: CRWCD
• Title: 1937 - 1987 50th Colorado River Water Conservation District
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Project Overview

was another scheme to divert water to thirsty agricultural lands
in the Arkansas Valley. It was to be known as the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project which, at the time. was considered a first stage
of the Gunnison-Arkansas Project.
Delaney suggested of the two proposed projects Fry-Ark was
much more satisfactory as a diversion project. The two River
District representatives insisted in meetings with people from
Arkansas Basin that the compensatory and mitigation features of
Senate Document 80 be applied to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Pro.-
ject. Yet anotht'r provision they fought for barred future diver-
sions until the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had first made a
thorough study of Western Slope water availability and pro-
jected needs.

. J

.

,.;

..,

The District's Fry-Ark negotiators, under
direction by the Board, accomplished yet
another protective feature. Ruedi Dam
and reservoir would be built on the Fry-
ingpan River above Basalt to provide
storage for the transmounlain diVer-
sion. The Fryingpan feeds into the
Roaring Fork River. a tributary of
the Colorado. District nego.
tiators insisted that any agreement
must assure sufficient water for --~
fishing. not only in the Fryingpan
drainage, but in the Roaring Fork
River as well. This was an important
environmental stand taken by the Mfa",,*, N. ASpl11lJU
River District in addition to the MT. Chairman
minimum releases required from the C.BT achieved earlier.
In yet another instance, the Board played a leading role in an
effort to build a reservoir on the Gunnison River. A. Allen Brown
was Board President, and one to be remembered for the fights he
led during his 23 years of leadership in prott'cling Western Col-
orado against transmountain diversions. Even thou/oth the
Gunnison-Arkansas diversion project was dead, Brown and the
Board insisted the only way to save the Gunnison from other
transmountain diversion schemes would be to build a storage
facility.
Public sentiment in those days in Gunnison County ran about
90 to 95% against a water storage project on the Gunnison for a
variety of reasons, many of them stemming from misinformation.
Through the efforts of the River District, a majority of the
residents finally recognized the merits of such a project, which
turned out to be the Curecanti.

July 18, 1981 df!dicatwll ct'remonil3' at lJllte Mesa Rf"f!TvoIT hmllln71g WlJym? Alpl1lllLL
RQl4nd C. FudeT, SecT13tary-EngineeT of the Colorado RiveT Dutnet i. th" BPf'akt'T.
7