Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001478 <br /> <br />4. The operv:tion of the pe:cmanent, pool would have to be <br /> <br />approved by 'the Corps of Engineers, Arkansas River Compact f,dmin- <br /> <br />istration, th~~ Colorado S'tate Engineer and the Colorado Iva'ter <br /> <br />, Conservation Board. <br /> <br />ProPCl~~<LLeqisl,a,:j9n I'I,?.'?.:I,:~E-osJ tio;:, <br /> <br />In 1960 11r. Sparks recomrnended to the Board that they <br /> <br />approve a draft of legislation that would au'thorize invasion of <br /> <br />the flood control space to the amount of 10,000 acre-feet for a <br /> <br />permanent pool. <br /> <br />Since i,t would be an invasion of the flood <br /> <br />control pool, it would not infringe upon ~he rights of the ir- <br /> <br />riga'tors in the conserva'tion pool. Cons'truction of various soil <br /> <br />conservation projec'ts and two major projects - Trinidad and <br /> <br />Pueblo Reservoirs - would lessen the flood control requirements <br /> <br />and justify a mino:c invasion of the flood con'crol pool. The <br /> <br />Board would not vote approvvl on the grounds that there was <br /> <br />considerable opposition from irriga'tors bel0l1 the d2m and also <br /> <br />t,hey \vanted more information' on operating procedures. <br /> <br />In 1963, at 'the reques't of t,he Governor and the Stat:e <br /> <br />Game, Fish and Parks Department, the Board again considered the <br /> <br />draft of proposed legislation. During two meetings spokesmen for <br /> <br />all interest,ed groups were allowed 'co present argi1men'ts. <br /> <br />The opposition made the following points: <br /> <br />1. Sil,tation would increase, because there would be <br />'''''.. <br /> <br />-8- <br /> <br />,i~,:;;~ <br />