Laserfiche WebLink
<br />IRELA.NQ, SlAPLETON, P.......O~ & ~~OLMt5 <br />f-'1~OF"E"S510NAL CORPORATION <br /> <br />Mr04Ilhis D. Sherman <br />January 26, 1976 <br />Page -13- <br /> <br />Bijou landowners will divert by exchange to their <br /> <br />wells. A pump would deliver to the Riverside canal if its <br /> <br />owners chose to join the District. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />If the site were upstream, Riverside and Bijou <br /> <br />proposed not using their existing reservoirs. This could <br /> <br />result in less water in storage at certain times and in the <br /> <br />loss of Riverside and Empire Reservoirs for recreation and <br /> <br />wildlife uses. <br /> <br />Mention is made of the Weldon Valley water rights. <br /> <br />It is true that if landowners in the take area elect to sell <br /> <br />their water off the land and then sell it to the government <br /> <br />as dry land, part or all of the Weldon Valley water rights <br /> <br />would not be available to the project. This would material- <br /> <br />ly reduce the land acquisition costs and would not change <br /> <br />the cost-benefit ratio because Weldon Valley water applied <br /> <br />downstream was not included as a project benefit. <br /> <br />It is also asserted that the vleldon Valley ,,,ater <br /> <br />cannot be'condemned. This is not true. It can be condemned <br /> <br />. ~... ,. . <br /> <br />and recent actions of the City of Thornton are a case in <br /> <br />point. Other mutual ditch company vlater rights in Colorado <br /> <br />have been purchased under threat of condemnation. <br /> <br />A question is also raised about how much Weldon <br /> <br />Valley \'Iater vlould be ava ilable for proj ect purposes. <br />