My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00170
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00170
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:13:04 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:33:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />It should be noted that the River District filed on and maintain- <br />ed diligence on decrees that eventually built the Curecanti Unit. <br />Most of the right, title, interest, claim and priority of the <br />District's conditional decrees were assigned to the Department of <br />the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation, builder and operator of the <br />Curecanti Unit. <br />Today. the Curecanti, renamed the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit as <br />a memorial to Colorado's Congressman of 24 years specializing in <br />natural resource legislation. is indeed appreciated by the people <br />of Gunnison County for the economic benefits afforded the <br />region. (The Curecanti Unit includes three reservoirs and power <br />plants, Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and Crystal in a 35-mile stretch <br />of the river below the town of Gunnison.) <br />The River District board and staff were active in seeking con- <br />gressional approval for Curecanti in support of the Colorado <br />River Storage Project Act of 1956 authorizing construction by <br />the Bureau of Reclamation of four major reservoirs in the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin: Curecanti, Flaming Gorge, Navajo and <br />Glen Canyon. These projects were to regulate river flow, store <br />water for beneficial use consistant with the many compacts and <br />laws controlling the river. generate hydroelectric power and <br />reclaim arid and semiarid lands. <br />Authorization in the 1956 Act was also given to the Secretary <br />of the Interior to construct. operate and maintain several par- <br />ticipating projects in Colorado. .. Paonia, Silt and Smith Fork. <br />Most major reservoirs built in Western Colorado, though built <br />by the Bureau of Reclamation, were built upon water decrees <br />that the District filed on and maintained required diligence. <br />Filing for the storage right in water courts is the necessary <br />first step to all other activities leading up to eventual construc- <br />tion of a project. An historic practice of the River District has <br />been to file on good reservoir sites to obtain w hat will become a <br />senior water right and insurance for the future use of that water <br />to benefit the West Slope. <br /> <br />ADDRESSING <br />SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES <br /> <br />,...,. <br />~, <br />..r.... <br /> <br />~.~ <br /> <br />lertainlY in the early years, the Colorado River District. Con- <br />servancy Districts, Bureau of Reclamation and others could not <br />envision the many environmental laws that would entangle their <br />efforts to apply water to beneficial use within just a couple of <br />decades. So it is easily understood why the board would react <br />rather than act when the District's first secretary-engineer, <br />Frank Merrill. reported on an alarming problem he saw develop- <br />ing with the Issac Walton League. The League, because of en- <br />vironmental concerns, he said, was leading a fight to prevent con- <br />struction of reservoirs on certain streams. the Gunnison River <br />being one of them. If the League was to be successful in their bid <br />to stop projects. Merrill told the board, there would be little use <br />in planning local projects. <br />In retrospect, it was the Colorado River District and its <br />predecessor, the Protective Association, that served as pioneers <br />in environmental protection in Colorado and in federal reclama- <br />tion. Protection of fisheries and scenic attractions had high priori- <br />ty with the River District board practically from day one. For eJC:- <br />ample, at West Slope insistence, protection for fishing streams <br />was written into Senate Document 80 governing the operation of <br />the Coloradl>-Big Thompson transmountain diver'sion. Along with <br />other protective features, there were required minimum flows to <br />protect the environment to a reasonable degree in streams in- <br />vol..ed in the diversion. The same principles were applied to the <br />Fry-Ark agreement. <br />On one occasion, it's recorded that Frank Delaney counseled <br />the board that "fishery protection should be a major goal" of the <br />District. This pioneering effort of the District has been <br />unrecognized and unappreciated by the environmental communi- <br />ty through the years. <br />The formation of a "super district" taking in all of Western Col- <br />orado was proposed once upon a time but was successfully oppo~- <br />ed by the River District. Origin of the scheme is not documented, <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.