WSP07363

• File Number: 8221.103
• Description: Middle Park Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 3/5/1964
• Title: CWCB: Agenda Item #5 Priority Schedule - Colorado River Storage Project Board Meeting March 11 1964 ‎(Supplemental Information)‎
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Board Memo

-'-'.._,
-;','.-'1,
.,."...1

'T'_~
,

N
C"';
C
..-i

c:

originating from either the state or federal courts. We cannot. of
course, guarantee that the Parshall Project will ever be constructed.
We feel strongly, however, that it can never be constructed if the
issue of priority of water rights is controlling.

The Middle Park Board did not either agree or disagree
with my explanation and recommendation. The Board did appear,
however, to be in favor of incorporating all projects within the
Middle Park area within the framework of a single project plan.
The Board requested that every attempt be made to accelerate the
feasibility investigations. I stated that it would be possible to
start feasibility investigations on July I, 1965, if state money
could be made available. It is therefore my recommendation that
the sum of $20.000 be budgeted for this purpose in our budget for
the next fiscal year, with the proviso that an additional sum of
at least $5.000 be made available from local interests.

2. Juniper Project.

Last Friday evening and Saturday morning, February 28
and 29, 1964, I met with our Board member L. S. McCandless of
Craig, and with Mr. John J. Sherman of Craig, President of the
Great Northern Water Conservancy District in Craig, Colorado.
There are. of course, conflicting views on the relative priorities
of the Juniper. Great Northern and Upper Yampa Valley projects. As
already indicated to the Board, the Juniper Project poses a special
problem as a reclamation project in that the cost is exceedingly
high in relation to the amount of irrigated land involved.

We do not believe that the comprehensive plan of develop-
ment proposed for the Juniper Project. which involves both Colorado
and Utah, can be placed under construction in the foreseeable
future, if ever. It is our recommendation, therefore. that the
Juniper Project be treated solely as a colorado project and planning
proceed on that basis. In such case we feel that it is imperative
that additional lands be included within the scope of the project.
One possible way of doing this is to consolidate the initial phase
of the Juniper Project with the Great Northern Project. Such a
solution may not be popular with everyone concerned. but offers the
best possibility for the ultimate construction of the Juniper Proj-
ect that we can come up with at this time.

I therefore recommend that the sum of $20,000 be included
in our next budget for the purpose of determining the advisability
of combining the initial phase of the Juniper Project with the Great
Northern Project. upon the proviso that an additional sum of at
least $5.000 be made available from local interests.

Memo

-2-

March 5. 1964