Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(. <br />( <br /> <br />{, <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />...4-" <br /> <br />Project Planning Report Ilo. 7-Ga.49-l of the Bureau of <br />Recl~~ation, be approved; provided, hcwlever, that there <br />shall be no re-regulation of native waters of the Arkansas <br />River as proposed in such report until a plan of operation, <br />rules, reculations, procedures and acreements in furtherance <br />thereof, including any pertinent agreements between the Corps <br />of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, shall have been <br />submitted to, and approved by, the Arkansas'River Coopact <br />Administration and the affected water users. <br /> <br />1I4. <br /> <br />It is the p~pose and .intent of these recommendations that <br />the proposed project development shall not ,interfere rrith <br />or defeat the rights, interests and obligations of Colorado <br />and Kansas under the Arkansas River Compact. <br /> <br />"be transmitted to the Governors of the States of Colorado and Kansas and <br />such Governors be and are hereby requested to submit the same to the <br />Secretary of Interior with their official State comments anc! recommen- <br />dations upon said proposed project and development." <br /> <br />Colorado interprets and understands that Paragraph three (3) of the <br />Resolution of the Arkansas River Compact Administration is controlled by <br />Paragraph four (4) thereof; and that the words "ai'fected water 1llSers".in <br />said Paragraph three (3) mean only water users in the State of Colorado <br />so long as Colorado complies with the terms of said Compact. <br /> <br />l. Paragraph 74, pages 27 to 33, both inclusive, under the heading <br />"Operating Principles," contains the "Operating Principles" which the report <br />explains were recommended by a Policy and Review Committee set up by the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board to study and review plans and reports on <br />the first stage of the Gunnison-Arkansas Project. This co~ittee ~as .com- <br />posed of representatives of the Board, the Colorado Game and Fish Co~ission, <br />Western Colorado, the Arkansas Valley and the City of Colorado Springs. The <br />report fails to explain that such committee ':TaS required to report to the <br />Colorado Hater Conservation Board and its recommendations rlould not be effective <br />until approved by that Board. The report on the project does not disclose what <br />action was taken by the Board nor does .i<ll contain all of. the.. recol'"lileI'l- <br />dations of the Policy and Review Committee. Some of the matters contained in <br />the report of the committee are not strictly concerned with project operation, <br />but are related to, and constitute a material part of, such "Operating Fri.-n- <br />ciples." <br /> <br />The recommendations of the Policy and Review Committee were revised and <br />approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board on February 22, 1951. (See <br />letter with attachments of the Director of the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board dated February 27, 1951, and addressed to the Director of Region 7, <br />Bureau of Reclamation). P'lragnph 74, ppo 27 to 33, both inclUSive, of the <br />report correct~ sets fort:, that Fart of the report of the Policy and Review <br />Committee, designated Article II "Operating Principles," as revised and approved <br />