WSP04401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(. ( c. . - 7 - "Initial Development, Gunn::'son-Arkansas P;:,oject, Roaring Fork Diversion, Colorado" - is a misnomer and misleading, and in the future may, in some manner, lead to.un~arranted impllcations. In addition to the reco~ended change in project identifica~ion, Colorado requests that the project be authorized as the "?r;;'in:;;Jan-Arkansas Project." 8. The Colorado JiveI' ,;ater Conserv~tion Jistrict is an agency created by State statute (Chapter 20, p. 997, Session La~s of Colorado, 1937) for the con- servation, use and developnent of the Vlater resources of the Colorado Itiver and its principal tributaries. The area cO;:.Frised 'sithin the District includes seven counties and a part of an eighth county id.thin the natural drainage of the Colorado River in ..festern Colondo. . The South,':estern Hater Conservation District is an agency created by State statute (Chapter 231, p. 866, Session Laws of COlorado, 1941) for the conservation, use and development of the water resources of the San Juan and Dolores Rivers and their principal tributaries. The district comprises seven counties and a part of an eighth county .'Ii thin the natural basin of the Colorado River il'l Western Colorado. \"Then the Board of Directors of each of these two districts passed upon the report and recomr.en- dations of the Policy and.Review Committee, including the "Operating Principles," as revised,. their separate resolutions, among other things, contained the follmving language1 Colorado River ~ater Conservation District Board "BJ<; IT FURTHER RZSOlVED, that in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Colorado River "later Conservation District, the Colorado '[ateI' Conservation Board should adopt a resolution that no further federally financed transmountain diversions from the natural Colorado River Basin should be appr07ed for authorization until the surveys described in said Section rJ' above are cOl:l')leted and the need for the use of water in "estern Colorado has been determined." (Section IV, to which reference is made, is shol"m by the trro paragraphs contained in the r<3pOi't of the Policy a."ld Review Committee, q~oted on PaGe 5 of these corrr.ents, and commencing "lith the words "The COll'.mittee recot;nizes" and "The policy of the State," re- specti vel;;,.) Soutn.restern ITater Conservation District Board "* ,~ * .j;' -r< this Board feels it should interpose no objection to the pro- posed diversion, but with the clear ~"ld distinct understanding this consent shall not be considered as waiver ~f objectio~s to any other federally financed transmountain diversion of the waters of the Colorado River; and rnth the further understandinc t~at the State ~ater Conser- vation Board of the State of Colorado shall not approve of any other such federally financed diversion project until the studies of the needs of the Western Slope be fully completed so that an intelligent decision relative to such needs may be given. We feel that after the many and long delays in making such studies and the promises made by some hi[;f1 in authority in the Reclamation Service, the ~estern Slope is entitled to have such