WSP08195 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l)~I??'7S -3- An agreement on the general substance and recommendations of a report to the Colorado Water Conservation Board was reached on harch 3. It was understood that the Chairman of the Committee should prepare a preliminary draft of report for submission to, and review by, each member of the Committee before being put in final form, The report herewith submitted, accordingly, has been re- viewed and is in the form as revised and agreed upon bw all members of the Committee. It represents a unanimous report and recommendations. 11 At the first meeting of the Committee, George Gory and F. E. Peterson, representine Iiontrose and Delta Counties, respectively, presented an extensive study ",hich had been prepared by them on behalf of I.;ontrose and Delta Counties to sh~r their appraisal of need, desirability from an economic point of view, benefits and detrhlents ,-,hich would result from the construction of the pro- posed Curecanti Reservoir 1Tith a storace of 2,500,000 acre-feet of water in the Upper Gunnison Basin. It was evident that such a report, because of its nature involving extensi'le supT'orting data, requi!'ed further study and analysis. The Committee, accordingly, asked Eessrs. Cory and Peterson to make a diGest of the report for transDittal to the members of the COmQittee. This was done and a cOPJ' of such digest is attached hereto as Appendix A. II During the third meeting of the Committee, the Cory-Peterson report ,-ras reviewed in detail by its authors and discussed b~' the Committee. This pre- sentation by the representatives of !.;ontrose and Delta Counties, because of its exhaustive nature and consideration of wany physical and economic factors, was of real assistance to the Comlilittee. It represented a desire to secure adequate consideration OJ' t;,e Committee of all phases of the problems involved which the Fontrose and Delta CountJ' people telieved supported the Curecanti storage proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation in its report. In the review and appraisal of the Cory-Peterson report, it was necessary, before reaching final conclusions, to consider facts and figures urged by Ed L. Dutcher, representative of Gunnison County, and which hRd been pre- sented to th8 Colc"ado Water Conservation Board at its meetj_n~ of September 28, 1951, by th08e who appeared in behalf of the people of Gunnis0n County in oprosition to the ~,5oo,000 acre-foot Curecanti Recervoir. T~ese state~ents presented an apr'raisal of detrirl'mts to Gunnison County, where the water l~ould be stored and valu:lble land inundated, and required careful consideration. 'f In like manner, the Cor~ttee considered a report prepared by the staff of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (heretofore presented to the Board) which covered: 1. The amount and classification of lands which would be inundated by the large Curecanti Reservoir. 2. An inve'ntory of the livestock within the 2,500,000 acre-foot Reservoir Basin. 3. The o.mount of renl estate '.-rithin that reservoir basin and its value, as estimated by the owners"