Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~. <br /> <br />10211 <br /> <br />CITY OF COLORADO SPRIliZS <br />CCILORADO <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER <br /> <br />C. H. BOlER <br />CITY 1.IA lifArn:Jl <br /> <br />JIa;y' 20, 1949 <br /> <br />Judge Clifi'ard H. StaDe <br />. Director <br />Col.arado Water Conservation Board <br />Denver, Col.orado <br /> <br />Dear Judge Stone: <br /> <br />It is desired to a.cknaI7~e!ige receipt of a copy of a YemDrandum <br />of April 29, 1949 !ram your office with enclosure of a coPY" of <br /> <br />RECONNAISSANCE STUDY <br />on <br />llllNIC!PAL AND IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY PLANS <br />FOR <br />CQLORAlXl SffiDllS AND THE FOUNTAIl. RIVER VALLEY, COLO. <br /> <br />Prepared by the Area Engineer (Bureau of Rec.l.amation) <br />Pll.eb~o, Co~orado, :March, ~949 <br /> <br />In view of the developments of the last few days w:i.th rei'erence <br />to the completion of the reports on the Ounnison....Arkansas and Blue River- <br />South P.latte Projects, and the institution by the Department of Justice <br />of proceedings in the United states District court of Colorado for defini- <br />tion of the water rights of the Co~orado-Big Thompson Project, it appears <br />only proper that your office and the Bureau of Reclamation be apprised of <br />the views of the City in the above referenced supplementaJ. report. <br /> <br />The reported costs are based on a princip~e that users of <br />project water for municipal purposes shaD. pay $20 to $25 per acre foot <br />in the Arkansas and South Platte Rivers plus additional costs for delivery <br />of, _ter to the intakes of the lIIlIIlicipal users 'llith gt"eatly va.ryjng costs <br />to the various lIIlIIlicipalities. The City takes the position that such a <br />princip~e is neither reasonable nor advisable for a IIIlIIIber of reasons: <br /> <br />(a) That princip~e is not followed in the case of irrigation <br />or pOl1el' service, unii'orm rates being contemplated at <br />the place of use regardless of location or cost of con- <br />struction. <br /> <br />(b) The resulting costs of water to the conmnmities have no <br />relation to the value of the service and in some COmmwll.- <br />ties, of which the City is nOl1 believed to be one, resuJ.ts <br />in a cost beyond the cost of a competitive source of 17ater. <br />