WSP01021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o '.-~) ~ ~ .....1 OJ CongresSman Ild Taylor. Spok<sman for West Slope interests. To this end, help was s4licited from a number of sources includink Weld and LarimerCountiesl Greelevan4Ft. CoIHns chambers of commerce, and torporations such as Oreat Western Sugarrand the Union Pacific and Burlingtor\ Railroads. All would stand to benelit, directly and indirectlYl from completion of the C~BT. A survey of the proposed1 project by Royce J. Tipton was complet~ in September 1933, and early in 11934, Representative Moses E. Smith, then Speaker of the Colorado Hous~ of Representatives, went to Was&ington to present a plan to the Commissioper of the Bureau of Reclamation, Elwo04 Mead. The Public Works Administration had shown less than full supporr for t~e projecr. and by 1934 the Bureau seemed to be a much more likely partner. 1 Meanwhile, howls of prot~t were heard from the West Slope wh~re Congressman Edward T. Taylods constituents looked with little f8.vor on a plan that would take away scmd of their Colorado River water. Organize~ as the Western Slope 'Protective Association, and led by D. W. Aupperle. SilmonlSmith. Clifford Stone, Frank Delaney aild A. C. Sudan, this opposition was giveq top priority by the NCWUA for theinext few years. As chainnan of the House:of Appropriations Committee, Congressman Taylor was a man whose support :Was essential if the C- BT was to be bL.ilt with federal funds. i After many meetings generating hyperbole on both sides, an agreemtntwas reached to build the Green Mountain Reservoir which would provide 1~2.000 acre~feet of compensatory storage to provide for existing and futuce WeseSlope growth and development. Alrhough Congressman Taylor stourly defen4ed his demand for acre~foot...for~acce~foot ; compensation, as advised by attorr(ey Frank Delaney of Glen wood Springs! West Slope opposition finally diminished, when in due course it became apparent tha~ the Bureau believed the C-BT Project Was feasible and that the West Slope wQuld benefit economically. i Final details were worked out in the spring of 1937 and became part of Senate Document 80, approved by the 75th CongressonJune24, 1937. AstoldtoBob Barkley by Charles Hansen, the real story of the Senate's unanimous consent vote features the work of Alva Adams and Ed Johnson. Because he. knew of Senator Theodore F. Green's standing opposition to unanimous consent legislation, Adams persuaded Big Ed to sit directly behind Green (Dem. Rhode Island) when it came time to vote. Laying his very ample hands on Green's shoulders, Johnson effectively stifled any opposition and Senate Document 80 was quickly passed by unanimous consent. It was soon approved by Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes. Ickes had not been a great fan of the project, but interested as he was in <<power," both hydroelectric and political, he could see the benefits of giving his approval to the C-BT. On August 9, 1937. President Roosevelt authorized expenditure of $900,000 to begin construction. . Almost simultaheously, Colorado gave Ufe to what 'ame to be known as the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Having recognized the degree to which Colorado...Big Thompson negotiations had involved much of the state's population, and wanting to create a state agency that could protect, develop, and coordinate water projects in all of Colorado, Governor T cUer Ammons persuaded the legislature to approve a bill authorizing formation of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. It was passed and signed into law on June 1, 1937. All that remained for this banner year was the passage of enabling legislation that would bring into being some form of organization capable of contracting with the federal government to build the Colorado- Big Thompson Project. to guarantee repayment of construction costs, and to operate the irrigation part of the completed system. The NCWUA Directors authorized AttomeysThomasA. Nixon, WiIliamR. Kelly, and the officers to sit down with the Bureau of Reclamation people and their attorneys and plan for legislation that would create a quasi~municipallty capable of meeting these difficult requirements. While Kelly argued for a specific bill that would organize the contemplated district with carefully described boundaries, Nixon favored more general legislation that would set up guidelines for the formation of conservancy districts throughout the state. Nixon's views won out. Passed by both houses of the Colorado legislature and signed by Governor Ammons on May 13, 1937, the Water Conservancy District Act was based on the California and Utah Metropolitan Water District Acts and the Golden Gate Bridge District Act. Golden Gate Bridge. Water Conservan.cy District Act based in part on Golden Gate Bridge District Act. As curious as it may seem, the reasons for creating a Golden Gate Bridge District were similar to those 'used in hammering out the Colorado legislation. Although Marin County residents would gain a much easier access to San Francisco, city businesses would also benefit from increased commercial activity. Taxing both entities, therefore, seemed both fair and reasonable. Likewise, the Colorado Water Conservancy District Act took into account the fact that more than the water users would benefit from completion of the C~BT. Designed to conserve the water resources of Colorado and to promote lithe greatest beneficial use of water within this state. . ." the act specified the pubiic nature of conservancy districts and expectations that districts "will": (a) work for the public benefit and advantage of the people of Colorado (b) indirectly benefit all industries of the state (c) indirectly increase valuation of taxable property (d) directly benelit municipalities by providing adequate supplies of domestic water (e) directly benefit lands to be irrigated from works to be constructed 3 I