Laserfiche WebLink
<br />19 <br /> <br />: <br /> <br /> <br />0081\ <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />However, almost immediately strong opposition was formed <br /> <br />against the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. <br /> <br />First of all the ',{estern <br />60 <br />Slope, lead by Congressman '.{ayne Aspinall, opposed the bill. <br /> <br />Part of the reason for this oppositlon,was the fact tl~t people <br />in Hestern Colorado felt that they hac). been betrayed by the <br />8'tate ,later Board. Around 1950 the Board passed a resolution <br />stating that no further transmountain diversion projects would <br />bE' approved by the state, until 8, cOl'Iprehensi ve study of ttle <br />water resources of the Colorado River, was done. About tlo10 years <br />after that Resolution was passed, the,City of Denver made a biu <br />to get a project of theirs, (Blue River Project) included as <br />part of the Colorado River storage Project Act, The State Do~rd <br />seemed to give some credence to Denver's position which really <br />61 <br />infuriated the people from the Western Slope. <br />California was also opposed to the project because any <br />water diverted from Western Colorado; was also being diverted from <br />Cali1'ornia so. they of course did not approve 01' the bi,ll. In <br />the third part, Congressman John Sayl,or of pennsJ"lvania, a mem- <br />I 62 <br />ber of the House Interior Committee, opposed the bill, and <br />right from the start the Fryingpan-Ar~ansas Project faced an <br />uphill battle. <br />In 1952 Judge Clifford 8.~ne, head of the Colorado <br /> <br />60 <br />Chenoweth, PP. 21, 22. <br />61' <br />Sparks, p. 149. <br />62~; <br />Chenoweth, p. 22. <br />