WSP01884

• File Number: 8220.100.25
• Description: CRSP
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 10/1/1949
• Author: CWCB
• Title: Minutes of Series of State-Wide Meetings Sponsored by the Colorado Water Conservation Board - Discussion on Interim Report of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on CRSP
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

.

MR. HUNTER: Will you explain how Indian Projects Will participate in the
Colorado River Stor$ge Project.

MR. BREITENSTEIN: The Indians elaim a prior right to the use of water based
on the Winters case. I believe the Indians have no re.ason to reserve water for
future use. The Imhans are warda of the United States. Theirs is a problem that
involved the entire. United States. The United States should not ask any state or
any group of sta1;esto give any more consideration to Indians than that given by the
entire United States.

MR. SKEV~'ES: I notice that all the arrows are pointing out of the basin.
The question is, what is the basic problem encountered by the Rio Grande Basin for
instance? What is the standing of a trallsmountain diversion. with respect to in-
basin uses? Vfuat are the legal prOblems, etc., for taking this water to a new
basin?

JUDGE STONE: lIhe diversion of water is an intra-state problem and is not
connected with this project. The vested use~ must be protected in consideration of
any transmountain di'version. No matter where the water is used in any state, we
must still have hol~over reservoirs. The states of the Upper Basin cannot use the
water allotted to them until the main stem holdover reservoirs are constructed. This;
principle applies to: aU uses. The difference between ability to repay .
construction costs ot projects and the total construction costs Will be made up by
revenl,les, from Colorado River Storage Project power revenues.

MR. SKEV\ES: When water is once diverted for transmountain diversion, is it
gone for good?

JUDGE STONE: Studies. were made to determine how much water would be needed
on the Western Slope , prior to transmo1,Ultain diversion of .vater. The plan of
Colorado is to have ~dequate studies and information to protect Western Slope
users; prior to transl)lountain diversion. By state law in Colorado both present and
potential uses;:ml,lst he protected before transmountain projects are developed by the
Federal Government. Of course, this does not apply to private development. In this
case only present uSeS must be protected.

MR. EMIGH: I would like to make some;> resolutions. Tile first is that we leave
the selection of tlle~main stem reservoirs entirely to the State Board and 'the;>
se;>cond is that in ma~ng a selection of local projects that you bear in mind that
there are over 14,000 irrigable acres; without water at the present time on Pine
River that are pay:in~ construction charges for Vallecito Reservoir.

MR. BREITENSTEIl'l: I have already written some resolutions which I think this
group should act on. I would like to read them. Do you want them read one at a
time and acted con or all ~'6ad at once?

MR. McDANIEL:~ad them all, then we will act on them one at a time.

MR. BREITENSTEHI: 1. RESOLVED That the Colorado River Storage Project as
proposed by RegiOIl 4:of the Bureau of Reclamation is approved in prinCiple with
the understanding tha,'t the Colorado Vlater Conservation Board make much criticism
of details as appeari desirable to protect the best interests of the State of
Colorado.' ..

2. WHEREAS, cer,tain projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin are proposed'
by the Office or Ind!:" Affairs; for the use and benefits of Indian Wards of the
United States, and V S, the ca,re of Indians is an obligation of the entire
United Statea, NOW T REFORE BE IT RESOLVED That (1) The economic justificatien
of all proposed' Indiafl Projec'ts; be detennined upon the same basis and in the same
" ,..6...

~ <'