Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />_ .,M <br /> <br />.."' tOG~i~~ ~~~.~~~~~~~~.", ~ <br /> <br />- Com ~t'ted -1943 <br />'- ._~ <br />-,..~",=",~, <br />. ---. <br /> <br />the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. The Congressman worked <br />religiously for an amicable solution between participants with <br />strong emphasis on compensatory storage built into the project <br />as demand('d by West Slope negotiators. Representative Taylor <br />stood firm that Weslern Colorado must be compensated in water <br />for any diversion made. and this must be agreed to before any <br />federal funding would dear his committee. <br />The lengthy negotiations concluded in authorization of the <br />CoJorado.Big Thompson Project. adoption of Senate Document <br />No. 80 governing certain features and construction of Green <br />Mountain Reservoir on the Blue River to compensate or mitigate <br />the West SlopE' for the loss of water through the C-BT transmoun. <br />tain diversion. (First rlelivE'ry of West SlopE' water through Alva <br />B. Adams tunnel under the Continenal Divide to the Big Thomp- <br />son River in northt"astern Colorado occurred in 1947.) <br />It was during these negotiations that the founders of the <br />Western Colorado Protective Association began thinking <br />perhaps what was needed. in view of current activities, was a <br />more powerful, more responsive and better funded agency with <br />considerably more authority. They saw a better structured agen- <br />cy in place to protect and develop water to the greater benefit of <br />Wt"stern Colorado. <br /> <br />THOSE FORMATIVE TIMES <br /> <br />n ...- <br />r,i1' spE'cial meeting was called by the Protpctive Associatiolt'in <br />March of 1937. with invitations sent to a number of West SI~ <br />leaders. D.W. Aupperle, president of the Association. said"t'o <br />those who traveled to the meeting from Moffat, Grand, Eagle, <br />Garfield, Gunnison, Delta and Mesa Counties: "We havt" been <br />working for almost four years under our Western Colorado <br />organization on these water problems. The main factor that has <br />occupied our attention is the project known officially as the <br />Grand Lake-Big Thompson Diversion Project....There have been <br />numerous conferences and we have been rather slow at arriving <br />at any definite conclusions yet....There are also some other mat- <br />ters that are in the picture, especially the City of Denver in their <br />activities taking water from the Western Slope for the benefit of <br />their city....We do not know whether we can hold them down or <br />not. but that is a matter that is faeing us....These matters will be <br />presented to you, and those are matters which must be taken into <br />account in our deliberations today and in the plans that we may <br />want to develop." <br />Frank Delaney was next to address the gathering of about one <br />hundred concerned citizens: "You are called here for the purpose <br />of counseling with some of us with respect to the steps that we <br />should take in negotiations with respect to the diversion of water <br />from the Colorado River to the Eastern Slope, and l'ertain acts or <br />proposed bills now pending in the legislature of this state, and <br />also congressional enactments which will probably be introduced <br />and urged in Congress to carry out the arrangement which we <br />make, if we make any arrangement with respect to this problem <br />that we bave all been discussing for a number of years:' <br />He expanded on other relevant subjetls such as legislative <br />matters, conversations he had with the Bureau of Reclamation <br />people who "consider the Grand Lake Project (C-ST) to be very <br />favorable," and recent conferences with Congressman Taylor on <br />working out some kind of a compromise on a number of issues; <br />also, the legality of transmountain diversions - "it is per. <br />missable, proper and lawful to divert water from one watershed <br />2 <br /> <br />