WSP03698 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Amity Mutual Irrigation Company 1509 control phreatoph,ytes. The river would be shortened 22 miles and some tributaries would be changed especially where they have been responsible for flooding towns. The total cost is estimated at 83 million dollars, 65 million dollars of which would be Federal expenditure. Some local organiza- tion would need to sponsor and share local costs. The Southeast Colorado Water Conservation District has been suggested as a legal entity to sponsor such a project if undertaken. The Board of the Conservancy District has also been suggested as a central control to administer waters of the Arkansas if Colorado laws are again revised and the State Engineer is relieved of full responsibility of water admi.nistration as the laVtl no"'" stand'3. Wate-r u::.ersbe\o'W John Martin Dam i.n Water District 67 are not now a part of the Southeast Colorado Water Conser- vancy District. The Supreme Court has not as yet given a decision on the well case that was tried in Pueblo County. Ver)' little storage water went tDthe Lakes through the Ft. Lyon Canal this year. 6200 a.f. in all. mostl,)' in July and August. Only 900 aJ. was di- verted during the winter season. A preIiminar)' report of Army Engineers on their surve,)' of flood con- trol on the Arkansas River below John Martin Dam suggests dams on at least seven of the tributarie-s in Colorad.o. Almost every year one or more of the se streams contribute substantial amounts of water to the State Line. Some of this water could be used in Colorado. No estimate of cost or definite plans ha,\,.e been released but will pro- bably be a vailable during this year. The Colorado Fish and Game Commission are asking Cor a transfer of a storage right for 5000 a.f. of water from :\Iuddy Creek Reservoir to .John Martin Darn. Muddy Creek is south of Las Animas and has a very poor record or storing any useable water ,yet the)" are represented by Colorado Attorney General and expect to obtain a Court approved transfer regardless of how it might effect water users when John Martin Darn is empty. No plan of operating John Martin Dam with a permanent pool has been presented to the water users and the Arkansas River Compact Administra- tion would have to change their operating procedures to permit such storage. Our opposition to a permanent pool has oo~n expr~'S'5~d ma~ times in these Annual reports but never in more concise language than written in the Com- pact Administration minutes of June 6, 1967: "Mr. Nevius was asked [or his views on the permanent pool. He stated that in his opinion it would be very difficult to main- tain a permanent pool without material injut)' to water users be low John Martin Reservoir. He pointed out that during periods when the reservoir is empty these water users have historically Page 5