WSP05579

• File Number: 8147
• Description: Gunnison-Arkansas Project
• State: CO
• Water Division: 4
• Date: 11/24/1948
• Author: Pol Rev Com Gun-Ark
• Title: Minutes of Meeting Policy and Review Committee Gunnison-Arkansas Project Colorado with attached reports and documentation
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I .

1048

r
, ' 10. RepOrt of Endneerinll: Advisory Subcommittee. Mr. Tinton, Chair-
man of the Engineering Advisory Subcamnittee, reported generally that work
on its assifPll8Ilts had not been entirely accomplished, that there was not
unanimous agreement between the engineers regarding certain }ilases of the
water supply studies en the Eastern Slope, and that certa:ln policy ques-
tiens brought up in cannectien with the reviews needed to be answered by
the Policy and Review Canmittee. The items reported en by Mr. Tipton,
together with the Camnittee's action are presented in following subpara-
graphs. At the conclusion of the discussions the Engineering Advisory
Suboolllllittee was instructed to submit a complete report en its revi8Wll and
studillll.

(a) Relationship of Western Slope features to the -0r01ect. To
assist the Subcommittee in its review, Hr. .!i.pton had appointed Mr.
Merriell to report en certain questions concerning the relationship of
the features en Western Slope to the initial phase of the project. Mr.
Mernell's report had not been completsd but he stated at the Canmittee
meeting that he anticipated finishing it in NovEll1ber.

(b) Re~ation of Winter lvate!;:. The Subcamnittee could not agree
on the amount of winter water storable in the potential Pueblo Reservoir.
Rough approximations made by Mr. Riter indicated spills from Pueblo and
John Martin reservoirs in years of high runoff which would not be UlIable
in Colorado. The estimated spills approximately equal the estimate
shown in the draft of report of usable Arkansas River flood water. A
group comprising of Engineers Gildersleeve, Powell, and Riter was ap-
pointed by Mr. Tipton to resolve these differences for the Subcommittee.
The results of studies performed by these engineers indicated that fur-
ther detailed and refined studies would be necessary to arrive at the
correct answer; however, the Subcamnittee concluded that exhaustive
studies to determine precisely the amounts of winter water storable are
not pl'esently necessary for purpose of an authorizing report. A per-
tinent policy question in this regard submitted by the Subcommittee for
action of the Policy and Review Committee was: Should a charge be made
to water users for benefits derived from the re-regulation of waters in
the Arkansas River Valley? In considering this question, the Committee
discussed winter irrigation pl'actices in the Arkansas Valley, the effect
of pl'oposed pl'oject operation on such practices, the needs for educa-
tional pl'ograms for more efficient irrigation practices, and other fac-
tors related to the regulation of water in the Arkansas Basin. As a
result of these discussions a motion was p9.ssed by the Committee that
the Engineering Advisory Subcommittee would continue its analyses and
reviews of detailed and revised studies of pl'oject operations as sub-
mitted by the Bureau of Reclamation, but that the resolution of these
problems would not need to pl'ecede authorization of the Initial Phase
of the pl'oject pl'ovided other factors are sufficiently favorable to jus-
tify the authorization.

(c) Use of Return Flows. The Engineering Advisory Subcommittee
similarly concluded that the question of return flows fran imported
waters in the Arkansas Valley was not important with respect to pl'oject

4