WSP04401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( ( . 2. That the Project is economically justified and engineeringly feasibl.e, . . ....... 3. That Colorado is obligated to see that the proposed project operation. does not interfere with three major compacts to which the State of Colorado is a party, namely, the Colorado hiver Compact of 1922, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 and the Arkansas Piver Compact of 1949. He said Colorado is obligated to utilize its ~ater supplies in a manner so as to meet its obli- gations and preserve its rights under all of these compacts. 4. That the need for imported water into the Arkansas River Basin in Colo- rado is great and is necessary for domestic ~ater supplies and supplemental irrigation. He said the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project plan is designed so that the importation of water into the Arkansas Valley will have no adverse effects on the rights of Kansas in the native Haters of the Arkansas River. Rep. Stone stated that the Colorado comments on the proposed FD'ingpan- Arkansas Project were being drawn with the assistance, advice and recommenda- tions of various local groups in the Valley, including the \<ater Development Association of Southeastern Colorado, ar.d "ith similar cooperation from inter- ests representing the V,estern Slope. Chairman Kramer concurred in the view- point that the Administration was concerned only with the native waters of the Arkansas River available to Colorado and Kansas, end that the Ad~nist~ation was not concerned with imported water nor .vith any of the details of local economic problems. . George S. Knapp (Kansas) said Kansas ~ould take the position that the Arkansas River Compact was not intended to interfere with any future devel- opment in Colorado which may be achieved through the medium of imported water. He said, however, that Kansas would be concerned with any problem arising from the mingling of the native and imported waters and would be specifically concerned with any program for the re-re~~lation of the use of native water. He said Kansas 'iQuld review critically the functions and operation of a dam located at Pueblo which night have the effect of impound- ing waters which might ooter~ise flow into the pool of John Martin Reservoir at Caddoa. Chairman Kramer agreed that a vital problem existed in the proposed re- regulation of the use of native waters of the Arkansas Piver, and Rep. Stone reiterated that Colorado is obligated to observe all the provisions of the Arkansas River Compact, including the rights of Kansas under the Compact to share in the native water of the stream. It was pointed out that water users in Colorado downstream from John Martin Reservoir have the same interests as the water users farther down- stream in Kansas. .' Chairman Kramer submitted his comments on the proposed project report; as representative of the United States. His criticism was that the project report submitted a number of conclusions which have to be recognized at face value because definite substantiating evidence was not contained in the accompanying text of the report. He cited three examples: 1. The project report contains a blanket statement that the project con- foms to all provisions of the Arkansas River Compact. Chairman Kramer said