Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />insufficient and held that "[ t] he plan required by subparagraph <br /> <br />IV must be at least as detailed as that necessary to document the <br /> <br />elements of an appropriation.,,75 <br /> <br />In particular, the Court <br /> <br />emphasized the need for such plans to manifest a "physical <br /> <br />demonstration of the design, construction, and operational <br /> <br />aspects of" the proposed diversion facilities that will achieve <br />the protections required by the statute.76 <br /> <br />4. Other Experience with Compensatory Storage. In addition <br />to the CBT project, two other transmountain diversion projects <br /> <br />have been built by conservancy districts involving water from the <br /> <br />Colorado River basin. <br /> <br />The first was the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br /> <br />Project. Beginning in the 1920's, agricultural interests in the <br /> <br />Arkansas River valley sought to supplement irrigation water <br /> <br /> <br />suppl ies. 77 Bureau of Reclamation investigations began in the <br /> <br />late 1930's. The project that was finally approved and funded by <br /> <br />Congress in 1962 involved the diversion of about 69,000 acre-feet <br /> <br />per year of water from Hunter Creek and the Roaring Fork River in <br /> <br />the Colorado River basin to the Arkansas River for the benefit <br /> <br />and use of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy <br />District. 7B <br /> <br />75Id at 357 and B4. <br />76Id. at 358 and B5. <br /> <br />77Terence Brace, "The History .of the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />project" (undated) at I. <br /> <br />7BId. at 42. See also Fryingpan-Arkansas Project (Letter <br />from ActIng Secretary of the Interior Transmitting Report on the <br />Fryingpan-Arkansas project, Colorado, Pursuant to Section 9(A) of <br />the Reclamation project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. IIB7)) (June IB, <br />1953) . <br /> <br />31 <br />