meeting held December 11, 1953. You will note these minutes refer to the Curecanti Reservoir and this, of course, is the small one940,000 acre-feet, the De Beque Reservoir, and Denver's proposed Blue River transmountain diversion. Sincerely yours, IVAN C. CRAWFORD, Director. EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD MEETING HELD DECEMBER 11, 1953 Mr. ROBERTS. I want to move the adoption by this board of the findings and recommendations of the Colorado Conference Committee meeting of December 10 in the form in which they have been presented here as the policy of this board and the basis of the instructions of the State of Colorado to its representative on the Upper Colorado River Commission. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COLORADO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, DECEMBER 10, 1953 1. Mr. Petry moved that the Colorado Conference Committee make findings and recommendations to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for the use of that board at its meeting December 11, 1953, as follows: 2. We find the Hill report correct in its finding that regulatory storage to take care of the Lee Ferry requirements is necessary for full development of Colorado's share of Colorado River water. 3. We desire that a substantial portion of that storage be established in Colorado. 4. That Colorado should insist on provision for substantial storage in Colorado as a condition of its approval of the Colorado River storage project bill. 5. As a further condition for its approval of the storage bill that Colorado should insist on explicit language to insure that downstream storage built preceding Colorado development could not have any priority to interfere with upstream domestic, agricultural, or industrial development. 6. That Colorado should insist, as a further condition of approval of the storage bill, that explicit and binding language be included therein which would clearly make available the net revenue of first-phase construction at an early period after completion of first-phase projects for the benefit of participating projects. 7. That Colorado favor the inclusion of the De Beque Reservoir as a first-phase project subject only to submission of a feasibility report by the Bureau of Reclamation. 8. That Colorado favor the construction of Curecanti Reservoir as a first-phase project with such modification as might be necessary to assure its feasibility. 9. That the water-conservation board approve the Hill report as to availability of water supply. 10. That this committee approves constructing Denver's Blue River transmountain diversion within the limitations of total supply contained in the Hill report, by Federal financing, whether such financing is provided in the current storage project bill or by some other means to be selected by the proponent of the project and that Denver participate in regulation to meet demands at Lee Ferry or other Colorado River commitments to the full extent required to meet Denver's share of Lee Ferry or Colorado obligations as ultimately determined with reference to all adjudicated rights affected. 11. We recommend to the water board that it be understood that the water board will make investigations of further plans for water use in Colorado when conditions change or additional data becomes available. (The motion was seconded by Mr. Christy. After discussion, was put to a vote and passed. Aye votes were Bailey, Christy, and Petry; Noes, Delaney and Cory.) Mr. DILLE. I have a great deal of sympathy for the feelings of the people on the Western Slope and I still think something can be worked out along the line that has been developed by Mr. Roberts. We must take some action. Therefore, I want to second the motion of Mr. Roberts. Mr. PUGHE. I think we ought to vote on it section by section. I move to amend Mr. Robert's motion so as to vote on it section by section. Mr. BAILEY. All in favor of the amendment to the motion signify so by raising their right hand. Amendment lost. All in favor of the motion signify so by raising their right hand. Eight in favor; four opposed. Motion carried. I certify that the above is a true copy of a portion of the minutes of a meeting held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, December 11, 1953. IVAN C. CRAWFORD, Director. COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD, Hon. WILBUR A. DEXHEIMER, Commissioner of Reclamation, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. DEXHEIMER: I am attaching to this letter a resolution adopted by the Colorado Water Conservation Board at a meeting held in Denver on Jnauary 14, 1954, in which is embodied the official position of the State of Colorado with respect to the upper Colorado River Basin storage project. Sincerely, IVAN C. CRAWFORD, Director, Colorado Water Conservation Board. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD JANUARY 14, 1954 Whereas the Colorado Water Conservation Board has given consideration to the report of the Secretary of the Interior, dated December 22, 1950, on the Colorado River storage project and participating projects, and to the supplemental report, dated December 10, 1953, of the Secretary of the Interior on the same subject; and Whereas the board in an endeavor to ascertain the attitude of all interested areas and citizens of the State of Colorado in regard to the position which Colorado should take on such reports did at its February 17, 1953, meeting create the Colorado Conference Committee to study the use of Colorado River water in Colorado and particularly the proposed transmountain diversion by Denver from the Blue River; and Whereas the general assembly made available to the board an appropriation of $100,000 to finance such study and with the funds so made available the engineering firm of Leeds, Hill & Jewett was employed to make a study of the depletion of surface water supplies west of the Continental Divide and did also arrange for a report from the University of Colorado on the economic potential of western Colorado; and Whereas such reports have been made and the conference committee has reported to the board; and Whereas in a further effort to reconcile conflicting views as to the use of Colorado River water without the natural basin in Colorado the board did on: December 30, 1953, appoint a mediation committee which has this day reported that it could come to no agreement: now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the official State agency which is charged by law with the duty and responsibility of promoting the conservation of the waters of the State of Colorado in order to secure the greatest utilization of such waters and the utmost prevention of floods, That 1. It is the position of the State of Colorado that all waters of the Colorado River system available for use in the State of Colorado under the various instruments constituting the law of the river shall be put to beneficial consumptive use in Colorado as expeditiously as orderly economic development will permit. 2. Because of Lee Ferry delivery obligations imposed by the Colorado River compact of 1922, substantial quantities of regulatory holdover storage must be provided in the upper basin if that basin is to be able to put to beneficial consumptive use its allotted share of Colorado River water. 3. The Colorado River storage project will provide such necessary storage and is essential to the full economic development of the water resources of the upper basin. 4. The plan of the Colorado River storage project to finance the construction of the necessary holdover reservoirs through the revenues derived from the sale of power generated at hydroelectric plants and to utilize a portion of such revenues to assist in the financing of so-called participating projects which meet certain fixed criteria is approved. 5. In connection with the Glen Canyon Reservoir, Colorado directs attention to the fact that this reservoir, which is located but a short distance above Lee Ferry, will yield substantial benefits to the lower basin, one of the most important of which is the detention of silt and the resulting prolongation in the useful life of Lake Mead. The official representatives of Colorado should strive to obtain some recognition by the lower basin of these benefits and, if possible, a sharing by the lower basin of such matters as reservoir losses. 6. The Echo Park unit is a desirable feature which has the full support of Colorado. 7. Authorizing legislation should contain appropriate provisions for the recapture for use within the upper basin of power generated by the Colorado River storage project when and if any of such power is sold or transmitted for use within the lower basin. 8. Specific provision should be made in authorizing legislation to assure that no rights vest in the use of water for power generation in units of the project which will prevent or handicap the beneficial consumptive use upstream of the waters of the Colorado River system to which any upper-basin State is entitled. 9. Colorado has no objections to the report of the Secretary of the Interior on participating projects except that Colorado urges that further study be given to the La Plata and San Miguel projects, which are urgently needed, in order to develop, if possible, a feasible plan therefor and except as hereinafter noted. 10. The report and the supplemental report of the Secretary of the Interior practically ignores any development of Colorado River system water in Colorado. For this reason, Colorado cannot accept the report and supplemental report as now submitted. As conditions precedent to Colorado approval of the report, provisions must be made therein, or in the authorizing legislation, which will assure the following water development in Colorado: (a) The Cross Mountain unit must be included within the initial authorization for construction as a part of the first phase of the project. (b) There is no doubt that further consumptive use of water in Colorado is directly dependent upon high upstream storage. To provide therefor there must be included in the initial authorization approximately 3 million acre-feet of total new storage on the Colorado River and its tributaries above Grand Junction, Colo., a substantial portion of which shall be located on the upper reaches of the Gunnison River. The known reservoir sites which might accomplish this objective are Curecanti on the Gunnison and DeBeque on the Colorado River. Additional investigations may disclose other sites. There is little doubt but that the stated amount of storage will be needed. The Secretary of the Interior is urged to expedite the investigation and study of projects which will furnish the requested storage. 11. Denver, the capitol city of Colorado, desires to divert water from the Blue River, a tributary of the Colorado River, for use for municipal and industrial purposes in the metropolitan Denver area. The rights of Denver to take and divert such water are alleged to be in conflict with rights for the use of water stored in Green Mountain Reservoir and taken through the Green Mountain powerplant for the generation of power. Green Mountain Dam, Reservoir, and powerplant constitute a unit of the Colorado-Big Thompson project of the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The controversy over the relative rights of Denver and the Green Mountain project are in litigation in a lawsuit now pending in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and in another lawsuit now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. would be improper for this board to attempt to invade the process of the courts or to influence the pending litigation. The board has no intention of doing either. The feasibility of the proposed Denver-Blue River diversion depends, among other things, on the outcome of this litigation, or on some alternative thereto which satisfactorily protects the Colorado-Big Thompson project. Upon the condition that the legal availability of a reasonable quantity of water for the Denver-Blue River diversion be established, either by litigation or some other arrangement, and the condition that such project be otherwise feasible, the board It approves the Denver-Blue River project for inclusion as a participating project in the authorization of the Colorado River storage project or for such other Federal legislative or administrative action as may be requested by Denver. 12. The board recommends that Denver and the representatives of the west slope in Colorado make every effort to arrive at a harmonious solution of the unfortunate transmountain diversion controversy which for years has created dissension in Colorado. The board pledges that it and its staff will be ready to assist in the amicable settlement of this prolonged conflict. 13. The director of the board and the Colorado member of the Upper Colorado River Commission are directed to do all things necessary and proper to effectuate this resolution. 14. Copies of this resolution shall be forthwith transmitted to the Governor of Colorado and to the members of the Colorado congressional delegation. It was moved by Mr. Dille that the above resolution be adopted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roberts and carried, the vote being 10 ayes and 3 noes. I certify that the above is a true copy of a portion of the Colorado Water Conservation Board's minutes of the meeting of the board held January 14, 1954. IVAN C. CRAWFORD, Director. LETTER OF DECEMBER 28, 1953, FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Santa Fe, N. Mex., December 28, 1953. The Honorable DOUGLAS MCKAY, Washington, D. C. DEAR GOVERNOR MCKAY: Your supplemental report on the Colorado River storage project and participating projects, Upper Colorado River Basin, was released to the Upper Colorado River Commission by Commissioner Dexheimer on December 12, 1953. This supplemental report was discussed by our San Juan policy committee in my office on December 18. This letter constitutes New Mexico's comments on the supplemental report. We wish to commend you and the Department for your efforts to incorporate the views of the State in your report and recommendations. It is now the view of New Mexico that it can support your recommendation as set out in paragraph 14 of the supplemental report. There it is stated that the Navaho Dam and Reservoir should be eliminated as a unit of the storage project and that it should become a part of the Shiprock irrigation project, and that it should be the first unit of the Shiprock project to be constructed. Also, that the South Juan and Shiprock developments should be incorporated as one project to be called the Navaho project consisting of two divisions. New Mexico will seek and support the proper amendments to the authorization bill to carry out this change. Comments and recommendations included in the supplemental report in paragraphs 12, 13, 24, and 29 (d) do not adequately reflect the views and recommendations of the State of New Mexico. Those views and recommendations were set out in a letter of June 12, 1951, by the State engineer of New Mexico. Another official statement which should be recognized, although it is not specifically directed to the Colorado storage project, is my letter of March 4, 1953, requesting feasibility reports on projects in New Mexico utilizing San Juan River water. Accompanying that letter was a short review of the San Juan River problem in New Mexico. The record is adequately clear that a Shiprock project or a Navaho project, as now envisioned, cannot be considered independent of the San Juan-Chama-transmountain diversion project. It is clear that the operation of either of the projects must be concurrent with the other on a predetermined operational plan. Also, it is apparent that not only the acreage for the Shiprock and South San Juan units of the Navaho project need to be determined, but a limitation must be put on the water supply the same as a limitation must be put on the water supply of the transmountain diversion. These projects cannot in any way be considered separately. It was the intention of the State of New Mexico that feasibility reports on these projects should show how each would operate in relation to the other. Since authorization of large Federal projects is sometimes considered to be identical to a declaration of intent to use the water, and is sometimes felt to constitute a priority date, it appears that concurrent authorization of these projects is necessary. The feasibility reports should indicate to what extent the authorizations can be sustained. New Mexico regrets the exclusion of the LaPlata unit of the AnimasLa Plata project from the present recommendations. The conditions are understood. It must be noted, however, that this is a very badly needed project for that particular area and it is hoped that every consideration may be given to its inclusion or early consideration among the participating projects of the Colorado River storage plan. New Mexico hopes that you will again review the comments of June 12 and my letter of March 4 with the accompanying report and make such changes in your report and recommendations that you feel are possible and compatible with the views of the State. Sincerely, E. L. MECHEM. LETTER OF DECEMBER 22, 1953, FROM THE STATE OF UTAH THE STATE OF UTAH, UTAH WATER AND POWER BOARD, Re Colorado River storage project and participating projects-views and comments. Hon. DOUGLAS MCKAY, Secretary of the Interior, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SECRETARY MCKAY: Your supplemental report on the Colorado River storage project and participating projects dated October 1953 was handed to me by Commissioner Dexheimer at a special meeting of the Upper Colorado River Compact Commission held in Denver, Colo., December 12, 1953, with the suggestion that comments be filed with the Secretary of the Interior. Under date of June 12, 1951, and signed by the Utah State engineer, the State of Utah submitted to your office its comments and stated among other things: *** the State of Utah approves the plan of development of the water resources of the upper Colorado River Basin described in the report and requests authorization for the construction of the projects listed in paragraph (6) of the Commissioner's letter of December 22, 1950. |