Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001480 <br /> <br />3. The opera'tion of -the permanen't pool would no-t be a <br /> <br />problem because Colorado has lo'cs of experience a-t this type of <br /> <br />thing - it operates most of the reservoirs in a similar manner. <br /> <br />4. State St,a"l:utes offer sufficient protection in <br /> <br />changing point of diversion and use. <br /> <br />5. The only lakes in the area elat are suitable for <br /> <br />developmen-t are privat,ely owned. <br /> <br />'1'his time 'che Board decided to suppox"t 'the motion. <br /> <br />The bill, !-l.R. 7162, was introduced in the House for <br />I <br />I <br />the thiJ:d time after being tabled twice because of Objertions <br /> <br />from the same group and finally became a law in October 1965. <br /> <br />The Law offers_ maximum safeguards to ot,her wute): users because it <br /> <br />requires: <br /> <br />1. The S'tate to purchase the water rights necessary to <br /> <br />es-tablish and main'tain the permanent pool. <br /> <br />2. '1'he rights of the in:igators in Colorado and Kansas <br /> <br />are not to be diminished or impaired. <br /> <br />3. No,thing in the La,,! means that recreation uses are <br /> <br />to be given preference to irrigation uses. <br /> <br />4. '1'he operating cri,teria of the permanent pool must <br /> <br />be approved in vll:iting by 'the Chief of Engineers - U. S. Army, <br /> <br />t_he Colorado S-tate Engineer, -the Arkansas River Compact Admin- <br /> <br />is-tration and the Colorado Hater Conservation Board. <br /> <br />-10- <br /> <br />::. ._' <br />