Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1031 <br /> <br />priority rights from minor tributaries to the main stream of the Arkansas <br />River, which action is still pending in court. He pointed out that the <br />present practice and attitude of water right users from the river pro- <br />hibits any more transfers of rights. He expressed the thought that the <br />City has exhausted all potentialities in the Arkansas Basin to improve <br />its minicipal supplies. In response to a question from the Committee ~Ir. <br />Ducy informed the group that the City of Pueblo has grown from a popula- <br />tion eight years ago of 52,000 to its presently estimated population of <br />90,000. <br /> <br />6. Hr. Beise clarified the position of the Eastern Slope interests <br />by stating that while virtually all of the water of the first phase can <br />ultimately be used for municipal purposes, the diversions should not be <br />limited to such municipal demands. The municipal demands will gradually <br />accUlJlulate, and in the interim the project will require full diversion <br />of 58,000 acre-feet. No precedent is hereby established that the second <br />phase should be restricted to municipal water. <br /> <br />7. Mr. Christy explained operations of the Wurtz Ditch water ex- <br />changes and of Pueblo 1 s arrangements to store part of such imported ~rater <br />by exchange in the Sugar Loaf Reservoir. When questioned concerning the <br />water supply for the Colorado Fuel' and Iron Compcny, Mr. Christy replied <br />that the company feels it is adequately protected under its plan~ for <br />immediate needs, however, there may be srnne question on account of the <br />recently negotiated Arkansas River Compact. It is the ComP~1vls policy to <br />limit the consumptive use of its diversions to an absolute milimum ,'Jhich <br />,~ results in a large return flow. Under these conditions any expansion of <br />its activities may require the company to increase its conswnptive use <br />by means of cooling towers and recirculation, thereby reducing the amount <br />of return flow available to the Valley. <br /> <br />Replacement Requirements at Aspen (Item b of Agenda) <br /> <br />8. Mr. Riter read and explained in detail the attached July 16, <br />1949, memorandum report of the Engineering Advisory Sub-committee on the <br />storage capacity to be provided in Aspen ReSeI"lOir site for the Initial <br />Phase Gurnison-Arkansas Project, Colorado, ~mich recoffiQends that the <br />COH1;nittee consider a figure of 28,000 acre-feet as the active storage <br />capacity at the site. Mr. Batson raised a policy question concerning <br />the obligation of the GwUlison-Arkansas Project for repayment of storage <br />capacit.y at the Aspen site and asked OIhether the imnlication in the mem- <br />ora;lda is that the obligation is on the exporting ;J~oject. ~ir. Riter <br />assured him that the Engineering Advisory Sub-committee did not consider <br />the policy aspects of the probl~n and that the report of the Sub-committee <br />does not imply how the constructions costs will be repaid. Such other <br />questions GoS the members of the COllUnittee asked ~rere ans;rered by Mr. Riter <br />to the satisfaction of the c;u"stic",rs. Hr. Jex reported on progress of <br />fow'ld"tion explorations d the dam site and <tns,'rered questions ~oncerni...>1g <br />the physical chara.cteristics of the site. He sta.ted th"t a detailed sur.- <br />vey ,f the dam site is necessary and that some difficulty has been en- <br />countered in obtaining consent to enter on certain properties along the <br /> <br />4 <br />