@ I:f'::> eM) I Aspen ~ reservoir Page 1 .~---------------@ eM) @ Pitkin County joined the '-1estern Colorado Protective Association G=J @ QtfV on March 20,u1935. ,. .hen the latter organization was some two years old. G=J @$I The Twin Lakes Tunnel to divert from the headwaters of the 11K Roaring Fork to the • Arkansas River drainage had been holed through earlier that winter. '~CPA President D. W. Aupperle had attended the holing through celebration. He reported IIthat .water .'will be aCT'" carried through this tunnel beginning early in May and that the Twin Lakes people will start court proeccedings in May to protect the water rights. II IIHe. related in a few. ''lords the beginning of this project and the allocation of funds for its construction before Western Colorado had knowledge thereof, and that in spite of our protest the government refused to cancel the financial allocation, but did hold up the matter until a contract was secured b.1 the Western Colorado Protective Association and the T\'1in Lakes Reservoir and Oanal Company. and that in addition the government secured an agreement protecting its interests in the Grand Valley Highline Project." Later. F. D. Willoughb.1, mayor of Aspen. addressed the meeting. IIstating that Aspen and Pitkin County is the best \'1atered district in Colorado. and that they furnish 1 ) '2!. 5 ~ considerable amount of water gOing past Grand Junction; that their town was benefited by the labor on the tunnel. and that he had presented to Engineer full and the "Planning Board anithe ~State Engineer a natural reservoir site available near town which with a seventy foot dam would impound 25,000 acre-feet, which would be S valuable to the lo\ §l o@ I c:::v C@ ~ @) €9 <;::l j '. ~ ,,- ~ ~ c::::J t:knl €9 @) i~ §l o§ I~ @ 9 163 J ~ @ .; I" e:;, (§) busy~"U~J2I Ii. and suggested that the Cattle Creek and Missouri Heights area should be • next. "Following these, a beginning should be made upon the several streams in Pitkin County where investigations \'1era made • during 1940." (CR\vCD, April" 15. 1941, Page 61) I Aspen Reservoir Page 3 Ten yeaxs t-Jere to pass before mention of a reservoir in the Aspen area {-JaS again made in the River District minutes. It was only the sketchiest mention: "the proposed used of t--later for milling at Aspen Ims still quite complicated and the details had not been worked out. 1I (CRWCD .. Jan. 18, 1949, Page 126) The comment t'las Inade by Judge Clifford stone .. director of the Colorado Water Conservation ~ Boaxd, in a discussion of the proposed Gunnison-Arkansas diversion t-Jhich was then in the pared to xr 1 ~~_• • If process of being JIM to its present.2 form in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Though it t-Jas centered in the ~ area being considered for MI!iF diversions to the Arkansas .. Pitkin County was not represented at meeting later that yeax to Hhich all the District I s county commissioners had been invited. Neither were the other counties involved -- Gunnison, Montrose .. Delta and Garfield --'except by their directors andjfeven Gunnison's director t-Jas absent. (Cm-JeD .. July 28, 1949.. Page 137) The meeting ('Jas specially set after the Board had been prodded by former Reclamation Commissioner ~ John Page for ~the lack of a concerted plan for dealing with diversions .. in light of the recently completed upper basin compact, and in vieH of the forthcoming Upper Colorado storage Project. l1eanHhile (iluTu 'lfi"J i ,. the Gunnison-Arkansas had become, in the HordS of FI!Eiit Frank Delaney, District counsel am a member of the steering cornmittee,"the proposed Fryingpan M diversion. " "It was now proposed to build a . . 28,000 acre-foot reservoir at Aspen for replacement purposes ill connection tdth this diversion.. which replacement would include that for the Twin Lakes diversion from the Roaring Fork, which now has no replacement. The Bureau is willing to do this to get the use of Twin Lakes water for power along the Arkansas. Mr. Delaney had propos,ed that the Bureau also build small reservoirs near the diversion works § ~ IAspen Reservoir ~ Page 4 .~------~------------~ iI· ~ on the Roaring Fork ~ had received encouragemerrtfor that idea. ~ small reservoir sites which could be used to store about 6,,000 acre-feet of ~ River to furnish fishing water in·~ that stream" ani Jex l s office had found several ~ ~ water, the amount estimated as needed, but Ben Powell was noH proposing that ~ the reservoirs should not be built" but instead the Twin Lakes people release R § R €§) @ the water from their divertible supply and receive in exchange water from "B ~ @ o~ Twin Lakes Reservoir which had been diverted by the Bureau. This {-lOuld entail diversion of more than 58,000 acre-feet from the Fryingpan which the Bureau proposed to do by adding Last Chance and Lime Creeks to the diversion system. II (CRWCD, Oct. 18, 1949, Page 147) I Aspen Reservoir Page 5 There was at least some indication early in 1950 of the direction things would take in Pitkin County. Delaney, who had recent~ been named to a conunittee to draft the principles under which the operation of the FryingpanArkansas project would operate, _ brought the board up to date on legal matters " ••• There had been some gain in what Western Colorado would get out of this project. While Eastern Colorado would get between 60-70,000 acre-feet of water from the Fryingpan River and Hunter, North Fork, Last Chance ani Lime Creeks, Western Colorado would be assured of sufficient water for fishing . . not o~ in the Fryingpan River drainage but in the Roaring Fork as JaIl well. This latter was to be effected by a contract between the project and the Twin Lakes Reservoir Company which would provide that when the IT_ _IE Roaring Fork River fell to certain 10\-1 levels diversion would be stopped and the . . water would contime down the stream. The water so released by the Twin Lake pe opl.e was to be replaced to them in equal quantity, by the project, from water diverted from Hunter Creek and stored in Twin Lakes Reservoir, from tV'hich it would be released. "As to Aspen Reservoir, he felt certain this would be of great utlity to Western Colorado and should insure plenty of water in the Roaring Fork River below it. There was apparent~ an excess of water in this reservoir, about 4,600 acre-feet, which it was proposed to sell to any Western Colorado users who might want it at a price comparable with the price of water on the project in Eastern Colorado, and if it should develop that the building of the project had increased the cost of storimg water in Western Colorado, the cost of such increase must be deducted from the price of this water. "President Heuschkel here interposed • the statement that he UlXier- stood that at least some people in Aspen were opposed to the building of Aspen Reservoir. Mr. Delaney said he had not 17, 1950, Page 2) " " .... -- - .. heard this." ( CRWCD, Jan. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------ I Aspen Reservoir Page 6 At this time, Delaney toJas fresh from court in Breckenridge where the Blue II1II River adjudication had finally been heard. He noted that Denver, Colorado Springs and the South Platte Water Users Assn. had laid claim to some 250,000 acre-feet of Blue and Williams River water while the Western Slope had only the Paonia Project, the Aspen reservoir and a proposed reservoir at Bardine near Paonia, totalling some 35,000 acre-feet. course, were never to be built. The latter two, of (Ibid. Page 3) The Pitldn County opposition began to develop at the "Mr. follo~r.i.ng meeting.' Delaney referred to the Principles of Operation drafted by a special subcommittee of the Policy, . & Review Committee for the Fryingpan 1 diversion (the Directors had copies of these principles supplied by the secretary) and said they were worked out at several meetings of this subcommittee and put into shape after such meetings by Jean Breitenstein, counsel for the Water Board. It was at this point that Messrs. Woodall and Shaw arrived. "Mr. Delaney had submitted copies of the proposed principles to Messrs. Sillllon Smith, Dan' Hughes, C. H. Jex and others and the basis of his discussion would be the conunents re had received. He felt that the subject had been quite thoroughly explored in several meetings of the subcommittee at which, except the last one" he had represented Western Colorado alone. Secretary had been present. At the last meeting, the He felt that several good concessions had been gained by the discussion, the principle one of which was the replacement which ~ the Bureau of Reclamation F2 &Canal Co. for the release proposed to furnish to the Twin Lakes ReservoU' of water which that company was to make from its diversion works on the head of the Roaring Fork to keep up the flow of that river at times when, of the diversions were made, as it was the legal right of the Twin Z.II Lakes people to =I mil' for the best fish culture and fishing. do" the river would be Imlch too low The Bureau of Reclamation proposes to deliver, in lieu of the water not so diverted" water from storage in the @ ~ 4It~o I Aspen Reservoir Page 7 ~----------------------------------------~ ~ enlarged Twin Lakes Reservoir, to the Twin Lakes people. ~ Service had supplied a schedule of releases to be made b.Y the Twin Lakes people The Federal Wildlife to accomplish this purpose, but the Secretary pointed out that in a good years the ~ ms stopping of diversion errtire4r would . . . not yield as much water as the Wildlife 'IUill-. Service had prescribed. "It was proposed by Ben Powell, area engineer of the Bureau in charge of the Fryingpan diversion that the water to make these releases should come exclusive4r from MidwCl\V Creek ani other tributaries of Hunter Creek, not included in the first plan for the Fryingpan . . . diversion. The Bureau had also planned an extension works to Last Chance Creek, a tributary of the Fry:Lngpan, with the understanding that diversion from Lime Creek would be limited to May and June of each year, in order not to interfere with uses in Western Colorado on GypsUlll and Cattle Creeks of Lime Creek water • ••• "Referring to the comment ~ he had received on the Principles, Mr.-. Delaney then cited the fact that as written ' . .tbes€£ in~Princip1es it was provided that the replacement water was to come from the tributaries of Hunter Creek that had been added to the plan first proposed. He had received comment to the effect that this unduly limited the water supply for IIPII replacement water and that it should come, instead, from arry water diverted and stored in Twin Lakes. The Secretary said that he was in full agreement with this c01llIOOnt ani felt that the reading of the Principles should be changed in this respect. Several questions as to the adequaqy of the proposed source of supply were involved. The diversion works nright not be of sufficient size to carry this extra water, in which case it __ could not be diverted. There were rights lower on Hunter Creek which must be served and it was also part of the project plans to divert water from HUnter Creek to add to the filling of Aspen Reservoir. This might cut down the water in upper Hunter Creek available for diversion. Page 8~ I Aspen Reservoir It would be better that there should be no . . Jimi..tation as to where this replacement water originated, otherwise the purpose of replacement might be (CRWCD, April 18, 1950, Pages 163-4) defeated. 1t Later, when Delaney was expounding on legal ma.tters pertaining to the Blue and Williams J!l _111[== Rivers, ••• Mr Woodall intervened to say he had had a 7-page letter from John Bernard saying that Grarrl County was battle alone. That he thought Bernard expected to get money and aid from his organization but they had no money for such purposes. Mr. Bernard's statement did not accord with the facts. Mr. Delaney insisted that That at every point in the action at Breckenridge, he had collaborated with Bernard and that in the Federal case, the interest of the it, was the whole view. fighting this I District, as he saw Colorado River and he proposed to fight the case on that He ",cobserved that Grand County had a chance when the District Has formed to become a member of it ani refused." (Ibid., Page 165) "Mr. Woodall then proposed his plan of action in regard to trans basin diversion tV'hich was to offer no opposition to such plans until they had reached the Congress l1li when Western Colorado would oppose their authorization or any appropriation for them. plan. If it were Mr. Delaney pointed out some of the weaknesses of that determined that there was water surplus over ! our needs it would not be possible t~ I prevent its diversion. Otherwise, the water would go to California arrl the lower basin states. a good deal to s~ 111_ _ Mr. Woodall had about the unfairness of diversion and l1li the fact that diversionists would get all out ~ th~ could, which Has not denied, but it was pointed that if we opposed ____ them in the Congress wo would they oppose our desires and the result would be stalemate. "CIt should also be I1]?---'1 observed that it is very doubtful if Jill such a fight can be made in the Congress. there are ~ Our Senators would not do it because tt-l0 votes in the Arkansas Valley for every vote in Western <§l ~ 411 00 ~o L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ I Aspen Reservoir Page 9 ~ Colorado. ~ shrewd to attempt such a plan as it would be almost certain to fail. ~ close the door to a!\V new projects in Western Colorado J-. for a long time if ~ not permanentl¥.) ~ ~ <§l I}@ It would "Mr-. Woodall said. he did not suppose there were very malW projects ~ @) @ Representative Aspinall, while a shrewd politician, is probabl¥ too in Western Colorado which were ba.d.l¥ needed and we could wait for our development, C@J ~ ~ but he was told that while we were waiting, the water would be used elsewhere. He was informed also that the Bureau of Reclamation was working on plans for ._.ill several areas about which it. was obvious he had no information. said his course of action had been ilt Mr-. Delaney predicated upon securing the greatest advantages which were possible to Western Colorado in view of expressed state policy and he felt that that had been done. it was p~ set out in the O~rating He _ further _ said that Principles that the Fryingpan diversion was the last that would be considered by Western Colorado until we had been furnished a complete and comprehensive plan for Western Colorado development within the basin. Judge White commented that that was the thing most . . needed, a plan for our uses so that we could tell where we stood. At the J~ meeting, Delaney told the Board. IIthat in his opinion the best deal that could be accomplished had been made in the case of the Fryingpan, the provision of the Aspen Reservoir • determination of the Bureau of Reclamation to in the Roaring Fork, the supp~ replacement water to the Twin Lakes Canal & Reservoir Co., in lieu of water they would release into the Roaring Fork River to preserve • • • fish and fishing in that stream, all represented the maximum we would get under the recognized state policy, since under that policy jll_.... water was bound to be diverted ••• 11 (CRWCD, J~ 18, 1950, Page 172) Later, in random comments, he returned to the Aspen Reservoir matter. " •••As at present built the headgate of the Salvation Ditch at Aspen • @ [p ~o I Aspen Reservoir Page 10 I "--------- ~ cannot ~ ~ stream, because it has an inadequate dam. take all the water it has decreed, nor even all the water in the Neither is the ditch big enough to 9I} ~ ~ ~ <;;:::;J @ [I@ <;;:::;J @ @ '1§J ~ @ carry all its decreed vJater. ~ Hr. Finley discussed the possibility of building better dam and stated that he expected the Salvation Ditch to be enlarged shortly. It· W'as not pointed out that with the building of Aspen Reservoir, part, if not all of these troubles would be over. In addition, the reservoir would insure water enough to fill the Salvation decrees." (Ibid, Page 174) ~ Finley returned to the next. neeting of the Board to discuss problems in the a.dministration of the River. The bulk of his discussion delt with the mainstem and the implications of Senate Document 80, but he I i closed with the Roaring Fork. "Every time the water is shut off from the Twin Lakes diversion, they rush over to the Grand Valley, as they say, tto find waste.' to do this in law, but never go near the one with authority to determim waste. ~ They have no right Water Commissioner who is the only This year they introduced a netoJ idea: that it is waste to run water on row crops after the water has just run through the rows. It must be run for some tine to wet the lower end of the rows as JEt mch as the upper end was wet. The waste was when the Grand o~ occasion on which they found al'\Y Valley Project canal was shut off for 48 hours to permit inspection of the twmeJ. by contractors, which Chiesman did without notifty1ng Finley" and the Twin Lakes people . . chose that Sunday, Sept. 13, to '-" visit. "This circumstance if! i U shows how important it is that full informatio of each move made from the headwaters to the state line be sent in to Mr. Finley. He hopes to have an improvement next year for there ana maqy things that still need to be done. He hopes to have, before next season, in his office" recording instruments that will reproduce the' runoff of both the Colorado River at Glenwood and the Roaring Fork at its mouth and save him valuable time as he now Aspen Reservollhas to go to stations on these rivers for needed data. Page ll[ The same thing should be done at a number of other places where it is needed information and can be used. Following the visit of the Twin Lakes people to the Grand Valley, Mr. Finley himself inspected all the ditches and found less than 10 second-feet of waste in the irrigation of 70,,000 acres, which he considers remarkable." (CRWCD, Oct. 17, 1950, Page 181) The Roaring Fork flol" problem and the m it Bureau's proposal regarding it in the Fryingpan-Arkansas diversion scheme thus had implications well beyond the borders of Pitkin County. But events in Aspen seem to have been locked onto a predte~ned course There was a special meeting held Nov. 10" 1951, two which water leaders from across the West Slope, including the boards of the" two water conservation districts were invited. The minutes of that meting.J;8 ShCM most of those attending were well aware that the Fryingpan was the lesser of the two 1;'[ , diversion to the Arkansas evils, and that the lno more I provision in the Fryingpan report was a thorn in the side of diversion proponents. Nevertheless, "Mr. J. H. Smith Jr. of Aspen said that the people of Pitkin County saw no good reason why they should not oppose any and every diversion and were planning to do sO." (CRWCD" Nov. 10, 1951" Page 256) Delaney concluded a lengthy discourse on the Blue River adjudication at the January meeting _ with the observation that "He still felt as he had when he signed the report on the Fryingpan . . diversion, that that one must be the last until we had a basin-vdde report on the water JIll resources and uses of Western Colorado." (CRWCD" Jan. 22, 1952, Page 266) "Mr. Delaney's last statement led to discussion of the attitude of Pitkin County people" especially those of Aspen, who feel that the proper course is to try to defeat the Fryingpan diversion in the Congress and l1li do not wish to have the Aspen reservoll- builto This might lead to building a reservoll- I Aspen Page l2 I Reservoir for the. same purposes on Crystal River, which would be all right provided that reservoir were large emough for use on Hunter Mesa and for domestic supplies in the shale towns in the vicinity lS from Rifle to DeBeque. It seems very doubtful that the Aspen people will succeed in their effort to prevent the)U 5 If authorization of the Fryingpan diversion by the Congress, but they have been led to think it will be eagy by outsiders who are • of the area and who do not understand hO~l S\lIJlm3r residents the Congress works. \I (Ibid., Page 267) At the July iliWIII.OIJlmeeting .... the Secretary called attention to two instances in which we had encounted local opposition to projects which had been devised to aid. them appeared that the _ any -~ at Aspen and in HE_ _an Gunnison County. Izaak Walton ~ague was joining in opposition to building reservoirs anywhere in Western Colorado. It seemed to him that he was probab4r elected to combat this tendancy for. if it were a fixed idea in the minds of local people ani that we were without any Tzrrr.m Now it sprotsmen~ allo~led the result would be defense whatever against any transbasin diversion, although these same diversionists would, without paying to the ideas of the Izaak Walton League or local people, build as reservoirs as they needed to divert the water. to become any attention ~ 5, 5 He proposed to get out a pamphlet and use any other fair means of getting these organizations and local people to understand just what we were up against. It was moved by Mr .. Neill, seconded by Mr . . . ....::. ~laney, that the Secretary prepare a memorandum covering this subject and circulate it among those now opposing arw Western Colorado development. The motion carrried." (CRWCD, July 12, 19.52, Page 276) The year 19.52 began a crucial period in Colorado water matters. DIIIP Both the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the Curecanti Project were in trouble and • Judge environmentalists were just beginning to gather their strength. HH~!IIBIBB$ _A.__ Clifford Stone, director of the Colorado Water Board since its inception, died late in the year and Denver sought to fill the resulting I Aspecn Reservoir void, making the loss of ile___ !I. Stone even more itself' began to lose direction, tm _ wide~ felt. Page l3 Tle River District result of an apparent health problem incurred by the Secretary-Engineer, Frank Merriell. For the next four years, the mimtes would, at times"prove difficult JU E,@ ani uncertain reading. Fryingpan-Arkansas opponent James H. Smith Jr. of Aspen was namad to the Board in :.- Jarmary 1953, arriving too late (CRWCD" Jan. 20, 1953" Page 5) to hear a good deal about the project he opposed. "In a discussion before the Board was in session, Mr. Delaney went over the reasons why Judge White and himself' had made the arrangements they did make while serving on the P. &. R. ComnIi.ttee for the Fryingpan diversion. since the Independence Pass diversion had been finished" j .. Ever IlJ the H Roaring Fork River had been subject to several conditions that were very injurious to the welf'are of Aspen, both for _ fishing and irrigation. They had tried to relOOdy these conditions, for which it was essential that water be stored above Aspen, and felt that they had made a good bargain and improved local conditions there. great~ The reservoir for this storage was located :i.rnmediately above Aspen" the only favorable site on the Roaring Fork River, so the Pitkin County people did not agree with them that it was of advantage to Aspen and the valley. This opposition was certainly within the rights of the Pitkin Count.1 people" who had. every right to oppose the authorization of the Fryingpan diversion before the Congress" which he understands they plan to do. He did warn them" however" that it was quite possible for Pueblo and other cities and towns of the Arkansas Valley to devise and finance a project f or the simple diversion of water from the Fryingpan River costing much less than the Bureau project" against which we would be powerless" and cound not expect the advantages that had been gained in relation to the Bureau project •. It was only because Colorado law gave us some remedies against a project financed with federal funis that they had been able to get the good results they had" which could not I .. Aspen Reservoir Page 14 be obtained without storage somewhere above Aspene" (CRWCD, Jan. 20, 1953, Page 1) Later, following a discussion of proposals on the Crystal River, Orest Gerbaz, sitting in place of Smith at the morning session, "asked what the Pitkin County people could do to improve their position and offset the proposed Fryingpan diversion. MI-. Delaney said. one of the most important; things was the actual enlargement of the Salvation Ditch. Since 1935, yhat ditch had had a conditional decree for some 30 second-feet in addition to its old decrees, but could. not much longer let this right contime unused and hope to retain it against the diversions by the Twin Lakes people, to which it was senior. They could. and would. claim lack of diligence'. "Mr. Heusckel then asked who could. be found locally to take up such a project and enter into contracts to guarantee the costs. It III was explained that the local people who would have to enter into such contracts could not be obligated for more than was felt to be their reasonable ability to . . repay the cost and. the balance, i f power earnings of arw arw, would be repaid by giving it credit for the net power plants on the project, • ; •If or, i f it were authorized as a Participating Projectll of the Colorado River Storage Project, the net pm'ler earnings of that Project could be used to repay what the irrigators could. not." (Ibid. Page 2) Smith replaced Gerbaz at 2:15 p.m. and "having asekd wJw _ had followed a meeting held in Grarrl Junction ]I'• • • November 10, 1951, Mr. Delaney explained that this meeting was held primarily to defeat by 0 I Judge Stom that would have attempted to apportion Eastern and Western Colorado for which we were contending. for action on Eastern Colorado which had paid _ no action a plan proposed water between It had depended no attention to it." (Ibid., Page 5) There followed a discussion which pro~hat Smith at best was a I Aspen Reservoir poor Page 15J _t listener. JI"II~. . IIMr. McCormick pointed out that Eastern Colorado was organized and coherem. while we were not. He referred also to the fight, years ago, about the formation of a junior college in Grand Junction" which was opposed by Gunnison" and said he felt some of the feeling then raised still existed. Since the Bureau would not give support to a report which they did not (unreadable) he felt we were to a large extent at their mercy and must just do the best we could at getting the report out of them. We were handicapped in having only one Congressman out of four in the state and the senators could not be expected to take sides in such a thing. IIMr. Smith then said it was apparent we should +cse water by diversions i f we did not oppose all diversions. He had talked to Senator Millikin in Washington and the senator had said he looked to the Water Board for guidance. Mr-. Smith also stated that during the last two years the Bureau had made no progress toward the completion of a report and he felt we must be prepared to oppose arry and all diversions by arv means we can use. 1I "Mr. (Ibid. Page 6) Heusckel asked IT. Snti.th what explanation he had for a letter sem. to him (Heusckel) and others dated 9 December H Co" 1953. "IT. Delaney stated that to follow a course of blind opposition would mean that in the end and finally we would be beaten as to every diversion and tha he had _ had tlri.s opinion since his first com.act with the problem in 1935. tlMr. Snti.th then stated that he did not believe the net-I Congress would permit such plans for diversion as were in the !IIIi offing on the part of Eastern Colorado. IIMr. MCFT,"Delaney then stated that in his experience" it was easy to get the approval of the Water Board for aJW diversions IRS • because the weight of voting power generally as well as on the Water Board was in Eastern Colorado and we did not have money enough and could not raise it to effective~ I Aspen Reservoir Page 16 oppose the majority of votes against us, but l1r. Smith felt the thing til was to carry the fight to Eastern Colorado. uIn response to a question, Mr. Smith stated that ~e would have gom along with the Fryingpan diversion without studying it, it it had not been _ _c devised in utter disregard with the wishes of local people, but this led to his study of it am. his decision that it was infeasible. 1I (Ibid.) In a final shot, Smith IIproposed a motion that the Secretary prepare a resolution of this District addressed to Senators Johnson and Millikin and to Congressman Aspinall asking them to exert every effort to defeat the Fryingpan diversion until it had at least been __ determined that there was an excess of water for that or arw diversion above foreseeable use in Western Colorado. 1I There was nOlJsecond to the motion. (Ibid., Page 7) In the spring of 1953, the Board heard a report from Bureau of Reclamation officials B on their efforts toward compilation of a basin-tude report. Phil Smith, a future Secretary-Engineer of the District, outlined the work on a major segment, the Cliffs-Divide Project, at the April meeting. In the midst of this, Director J. H. Smith of Aspen, "asked what had been done about projects on East Sopris Creek in Pitkin County. Phil Smith said he understood some private work was being done there and so noting much had beeJl dom it that area. (In the summer of 1940, the District had a survey party in Garfield and Pitkin Counties all sumrrer and surveyed a number of reservoir sites on Cattle, Four Mile, Sopris and other creeks. l§IIII Since that time, there has never been a chance to work these up, but if the Bureau wants to use them, they will be made available to it)." (CRWCD, April 28, 1953, Page 6) At that same meeting there was considerable discussion of H. R. 457 which had provided $100,000 from the State of Colorado, "supposed to finish the basin-wide report. 1I (Ibid., Page 8) This appears to have been nothing more than a quickie sop engineered by Denver to satisfy the provisions of § lS:o ~ Aspen Reservoir Page 17 I ~~----~-----------• the Fryingpan-Arkansasagreement. The result, which was to be known as the ~ ~ Report -- Raymond A. Hill was the consulting engineer -- Hill appears to have satisfied no one. Delaney told the Board in July "that Denver was trying to control the Conference Conunittee and eventually the decision MlZ'_ , _ l and even, if possible" the language of the Hill report" but what Western Colorado wanted was an unbi~sed" factual report on the actual water resource of B of the region ••• " (CRWCD, July 21, 1953, Page 2) "Messrs. Glidden" MacLaughlin am Dixon of Aspen having come in.. Mr. Glidden here said that the introduction of H.R. 236 in the Congress did not constitute an authorization per se, which is .. of course, obvious, and tried from that to imply that the approval of the "later Board »I'lL was given a dti'ferent bill than H.R. 236. He __ quoted Mr. Breitenstein for this .. but an examination of Breitenstein's testimony at the hearing'indicates that Mr. Glidden did not quote him correctl¥. He probably meant Mr. Barnard.. who made this one of the chell' points of his testimony. "Mr. Delaney continued by saying that he had seen H.R. 236, the record of the hearings, and Senate Document 106 only recently.. but was then' surprised to find that in Section 6 of the bill, an appropriation was openly directed to be made for further study of the Gunnison-Arkansas diversion /";.. - ,--; .. "':" ~ ••• " (Ibid., Page 2) Gerbaz .. who was sitting with Smith's pro:xy .. "said he realized the whole thing was a tough matter to decide and probably the only thing that could be done was to make the best of a bad deal, but he felt that no diversion at all should be made from the Fryingpan River, although he realized there was heavy pressure for such diversion and that the Western Colorado members of the P. & R. Connnittee had done their best, as they saw it, he could not agree with them." (Ibid., Page 3) "Mr. Delaney then reviewed the conditions that had been set up in the § ISo @?) I ~ Aspen Page 18 ~ .-------------------------------~----------------------------------------~ P. & R. report on the Roaring Fork River above Aspen by limiting the Twin Lakes ~ ~ diversion to only such water as did not interfere with a schedule of flow set ~ up by the Fish & Wil.cUife Service. ~ ~ ~ ~ § [)@ ~ @9 @ "'i§) ~ o~ as an average This called for a minimuJn of 24 second-feet .-61 during the period from October to April and considerably ]Ili more in most months of that time, and in no case a mininrum flow of less than 15 second-feet except when the actual flow is that much or less. of August, September and October from 1934 to 1950 inclusive, (In the months flo~l was less than 15 second-feet on 299 days out of 1,554 or 20 per cent of the tine. There were also days l-vhen this was' true in July, November and December. It must be remembered that this period has been one of practically contimous drouth.) Mr. Delaney said they had felt they were improving conditions on the Roaring Fork River above Aspen materially, and in the only way it could be done, for there was no control over the )D Twin Lakes diversion unless they could be persuaded to take water in Eastern Colorado in lieu of what they might divert under their water rights. He felt that while this diversion involved a diversio from the Fryingpan River, it was the only way in which the Roaring Fork River could be improved for the cost of storing water to do the saIIE thing was financially beyond the resources of the Aspen locality. (Ibid., Pages 3-4) "Mr. Peterson then moved that III it was the sense of this District that the Colorado .111" water Conservation Board should not approve the Fryingpan-Arkansas diversion project in a.I:\Y' other form than it was originally approved by the p. & R. Committee, which was seconded by Mr. Gerbaz and upon m oi@ ~ voice vote, unanimouslY carried." (Ibid., Page 4) o~ §g Pitkin County representation had been and a couple of years to be erratic. would continue _ _ for At the October meeting" W. R. Shat-l of Aspen was delegated by Pitkin County Commissioners to sit in the absence of Jim Smith. Delaney again voiC~UsPicions jjyxa"~5 at that meeting of what was § 11'0 00 I Aspen ~ Page 19 4It .-------------------------------------------------------------------------~ ~ to become the Hill report. § 00 "Since the Water Board meeting of February 16-17 1 1953, he had been at «? ~ ~ ~ ~ a loss to know what to do and he was not entirely satisfied with the decision taken at that meeting nor with what had followed it. Through the agency of the § I}@ ~ @ @ eel 0=@~ 9 Conference Committee that had been set UPI the State was now committed to a hasty report on Western Colorado water supp~ which might or might not do justice to our present and future needs. While the Conference Committee had $1°°1000 for doing the job l he was not ~1f_=[ satisfied that this was enough nor that time enough had been allowed for doing a good job. (Here the Secretary intervened to say that the .last two things could be laid at the door of George Cory who, abetted by Glenn Saurdersl had insisted six months was enough tim3 to get out a basin-wide report on Western Colorado). "111:-. Delaney continued that he feared there would not be time enough DiIII!!!!iII'P study and ~ze the Hill report when it was submitted l and he was of the opinion that the District as well as the rest of Western Colorado needs the service of more engineers to make their position clear. Delaney had been appointed to the ~ Since Robert Conference Committee, he, too, had felt that more engineering information was needed." (CRWCD, Oct. 201 1953, Page 5) If the foregoing seems digression from the theme of Xii 'gpiDLtlB Aspen reservoir, it is o~ because X'. m & the Fryinpan-Arkansas tiW I:K agreement was the bush about whl:-ch all the beating was taking place. ... If . . House Bill 457 was an East Slope reaction to too Fryingpan agreement, alIi events recorded in the River District minutes support this conclusion, then the stakes ~ realized. No one flatly stated the connection but one carne close. in the project were higher than most Pitkin County residents "Judge Hughes ••• said. that in his view too next 12 the most crucial time Western Colorado had ever faced. or 18 months were We had. thought we were Aspen Page 20 safe from arguments for more diversions because of the agreement.11 ¥ contained in the report of the P. & R. Committee which studied the Fryingpan-Arkansas diversion project, which agreement he, as then a member of the Water Board, had been instrumental in getting the Water Board unanimous~ to adopt as state policy, but since then, in violation of this solemn agreement, Denver had asked for ,further diversion and that this diversion project be made a JRrt of tre ~ storage Project. He felt that the good faith between Eastern and Western Colorado had gotten a hard jolt. It was obvious that this' _ District could rot raise the money to do all that was 1i4_-£ Ji) required at this time am Judge Hughes felt that counties in the northwest part of the state should join with the two Districts, and. all should share in the cost of whatever was needed to strengthen our poistion. 1I (Ibid. Page 8) Later in the meeting, Judge Shaw of Aspen IIread a resolution prepared by James H. Smith Jr., director from Pitldn County, which had been sent. all the directors by mail from Washington, D. C., where MI:'. Smith is serving as Assistant Secretary for Air, Navy Departne nt. After reading the motion, Judge Shaw moved its adoption, which motion failed for want of a second. 1I (Ibi.d., Page 12) The motion is not preserved in the minutes. IIJudge Hughes then BIIif recalled that he was a member of the Colorado Water Board at the time the report of the P. & R. Committee on the FryingpanArkansas diversion project was brought before that board; that it was adopted as nade, but in publication of it, there was omitted the condition which was contained in it that no further federal diversion projects should be em,ertained until Western Colorado had a basin-wide engineering report. It was necessar.,r to hold another meeting of the Water Board at which he had II1II insisted that the condition mentioned above JIlt_it' should be affirmed by the Water Board, which. t-las una..n:i.mously done. He then felt and was still of tIE rnilXl that it might be Aspen Page 20 a long time before a conclusive report on Western Colorado was finished. "Judge Shaw stated that Pitkin County people were opposed to any diversion, including the Fryingpan-Arkansas, and would fight it with a~ means they could raise. "Mt-. Danni recalled that the Board had discussed the Foposed P. & R. report ani felt it was a good bargain which amply protected Western Colorado, ani particularly Aspen and the upper Roaring Fork River, and commended Messrs. White and Delaney for getting such favorable terms and so they had felt it wise to approve the }R~?n~ report. They felt that conditions at Aspen were not changed ani must thus abide by their former action." (Ibid. "Mr. former Page 12) Peterson felt that the Colorado Water Board had not supported its ~ra:zIZl1U limiting condition set up in the P. & R. report on the Fryingpan-Arkansas diversion, but had let Denver stampede it into a position in which Western Colorado might be injured and was certainly not getting what former Water Board action had led them to eJq>ect." (Ibid., Page 13) I Aspen Page 21 nenver certa1nly appears to have domInated the Oolorado Conference Oommlttee whlch fostered the Hl1l report, then approved ~constructlng Denver's Blue Rlver tranebasln diverslon, -1thln the llmltatlons of total 8upply conta1ned in the Hill report. by "ederal flnancing" (CRWOD. Dec. 19, 19.53, Page 1), and tc Indeed have 8tamp'eded the Colorado Water Board Into acceptlng the Hill report and the Oommittee's finding8. ThIS set oft a reaction among River District D1rectors that would very nearly see passage ot a motion to resclnd approval ot the Fryingpan-Arkansaa ment. agre~ It noth1ng else, the result probably strengthened Pitk1n Oounty D1rector Orest Gerbaz' hold on his seat. The m1nutes of the December 1953 meeting are among the more contusing of the 1952:':.55 per1od~ "Mr. Hughes moved that as a matter of pollcy,thls Dlstrl will oppose all transmountain diversions trom the headwaters ot the Colorado RIver and its tributaries in OOlorado until comprehensive and detailed surveys have been oompleted Which will show the present and potential future usee of water in Western Oolorado tor all purposes as to eaoh stream or trtbutary atf ect ed, and the amount of water, 1f any. not needed nor oapable of uti11zation in We8ter Oolorado as to any stream or tributary; and that th1s District takes the pos1tion that the s~ca11ed H1ll report ie neither complete nor oonclusive~" (Ibid. Page 4) That Hughes' motion passed o~ only be determlned from debate that followed over one by Gerbaz: uThat thls Board resclnd Its former aotion approving' the Fryln',gpan..Arkansas dl verSion. This motion was seconded by Mr~ I Aspen Peterson, who stated that he did 80 Page 22 to bring the motion to a vote. • • • "When Mr. Gerbaz sald he wanted the Board to rescind lts former aotion, he urged that the project now proposed was not the one on whioh they had formerlY acted., and that ln any oase, th81 were relleved of thelr obllgat1on by the aotlon of Mesers. Chrlsty and Beatty in the meetings recently held ln Denver. sald he tel this motlon, 9,dopted just before Mr~ Mr. Bughes Gerbaz' motion aotually acoomplished the same thing and still lett the reoord of the action ot the Board clear.' He had never felt the Wa~er Board had been consietent 1n glving way to the demands of Denver 1n vlew of its actlon on the Frylngpan.Arkansaa diverslon when he wae on the Water Board. Hughes' motion, Hr~ When Mr. Gerbar. questioned the effect ot Hughes repeated that his motion could have no other lmplloation than a oond.emnation of all transbas1n d1 vers10n. The chairman called for a vote on }(r~ Gerbaz' mot1on whlohresulted in two vote. for the motion and three votes opposed and the ohairman deolared the mot1on lost. M (Ib1d., Pages 4-5) But the 188ue would come up for vote again some months later. The debate and the vote8 probably cost the River D1striot noth1ng more than frayed. nerves. On the other hand, they probably <...re~lar--> explain why Gerbaz, sitt1ng as a member of the Board tor the first t1me. was to tepresent m~~ourlal Pltkln Oounty for the next 21 years. A meetlng of a commltteeof the Pres1dent and two Direot j on June 17. 1954, reported ln the mlnutes for JUly, cons1dered recommendations to the State Water Board for the priori ty for • Aspen Page 23 further study of units of the Cliffs_Divide and Gunn1son R1ver Project reports. B(At a meeting ot the Oolorado Water Conservation Board 1n Denver June 21st, the matter of pr1or1t1es for investigation of projeots 1n the 011ffs-Divide and Gunnison River ProJeot reportl was considered. The Secretary had filed Wi th the Direo,tor of the Water Board an exoerpt from the minutes of the meeting held 1n Glenwood Spr1nge 17 June 1954 aak1ng for further study of the follow1ng units in the Cliffe-D1vide Project report: 1. the Parshall Unit; 2. the West D1v1de Unit; 3. the Dgle D1vide unit; and by mistake the Secretary also included, Unit.)U 4~ the Woody Oreek (ORWOD, JUly 20, 1954, Page 3) Woody Creek is seldom previously mentioned. In hie Apr~l 1953 presentat10n on Oliffs-D1vide, Phil Smith did not m~on it. HDirector Smlth .~~ asked what had been done about proJe on East Soprls Creek ln Pitkln County. Phil Sm1t~ said he under- stood some prlvate work was being done- there and so nothing much had been done in that area. (xn the summer ot 1940 the District had a survt\V party ln Garfleld and Pitkin Counties all summer and surveyed a number of reservoir.\ isi tee on Oattle, Four Mlle, Sopris and other creeks. Since that tlme therehae never been a chance to work these up, but if the Bureau wants to see them they vill be made available to it) ~ (ORWCD, Aprll 28, 1953, Page 6) With the Colorado Conference Committee and 1ts Hill Report, Denver had apparently attempted to satlsfy the 'no morel provlsion of the Fryingpan-Arkansas agreement. The resentment against their attempt to participate in the lltorage ProJeot had § is'=> r r--s-m-o~l-=-d-e-r-ed-=-a-n-d-=-th-:-e----:F::-r-y--:l-n-g-p-a-n...--:-A-r-:-k-a-n-s-a-s----=P-ro--=-.1e-ot..,-----:h:-a-dc::--y-e-t:---t-o--=-b-e-a.-p-p-r-O-v-ed-::-1 ~ Page 24 I Aspen ~ by Congress. ~ llttle proddlng from Denver -- put the agreement and the reoently ~ reorganlzed and expanded Oolorado R1ver Dlstrlot Board to 1ts ~ severest test 1n mld-1956. .g;, ~ ~ @ @ Impat1enoe in the Pueblo area _~ posslbly With a uMr. Sml th read a o11pping from the off101al pub11oatlon "\§J ~ of the Pueblo Ohamber of Commeroe, wh1ch had been sent to him by ~ Bl11 Nelson of the Dally Sentlnel of Grand Junotion ••• and also a olipplng from the Denver Post relatlve to the organlzatlon of a Southeastern District to try to finanoe the FrYlngpan-Arkansas Project Wi th pr1vate money. Mr. Smlth polnted out that thls proposal With respect to the Tw1n Lakes dlverslon was golng to hurt the ohanoes of the Salvat10n Ditch for full development of 1ts decreed r1ghts. Mr. Gerbaz told of a c11pplng from a paper in which lt was stated by eastern slope lnterests, 'We are not lnterested i~ developing the Arkansas, we want water from the western Slope,' 1nd1cat1ng the thlnk1ng of the proponents of the transmountaln diverslons. Mr. Smlth polnted out th!lt the Salvation Ditch people should have a meet1ng to d1scuss the matter that they ~'%: WOUI~.1ust as well off under the Small Projects Act as under a part101pating project slnoe thelr project was oonsidered fully repayable by the water users. Mr. Barnard suggested that Pltkln Oounty organize the1r own conservancy district and the Salvat10n Ditch could be sponsored by that d1striot. Mr. Gerbaz said that he had called a meetlng at Aspen for that evening, at the suggest10n of Mr. Barnard. It WaS agreed that Mr. Barnard and Mr. Smith should attend the meet1ng and d1scuss the matter with § ~ Aspen ~ 2S Page ,~---------------- ~ them." ~ There followed a d1scuss1on 1n wh1ch Barnard p01nted out ~ ~ ~ ~ § !l@ ~ @ @ '=@ ~ ~ ~ 1 that Eastern Slope was engag1ng in a water rush on the Western Slope. 'l8J , ! @!) ~ He suggested the only defense was for the R1ver D1str1ct to engage 1n a program of Whol aeal e f1l1ng of cla1ms. Then came a discuss10n concern1ng the feas1b1l1 ty of r@)vls1ng the already certif1ed 1956 levy. The dec1sion was to explore the lega11ty of the matter and, 1f legal and feas1ble, to call a spec1al meet1n ot the Board to oons1der the matter.' (Ib1d., Pagee 6-8) That epec1al meet1ng convened 1n September, adopted a ~ ~ (CRWCDEC, Aug. 17, 1956, Page 5) rev1sed budget based on the m max1m~m .2-mill levy, and postponed the October meeting consideration of a resolut10n withdrawing approval of the Fryingpan-Arkans8s Project. Barnard had· drafted a proposed resolution and the Board voted that a comm1 ttee be app01nted to redraft the resolution in the inter1m. 'CRWCD, Sept. 14, 1956, Pages 4-5) Showdo~n time came at the October meeting and was preceded by lengthy debate recorded in f1ve pages of minutes. Voting with Gerbaz in favor of·the resolution were Horn of Grand, Knorr of Summit, Jones of Rio Blanco, and-Dodds Scott of Garfield. Opposed were Porter of Gunnison, Hughes of Montrose, McCorm1ck of Mesa, White of Eagle, and BroWn of Delta. of Routt County, ~no Robert H. Gleason only recently had been app01nted to succeed Wayne Light, abstained. President Hansen wisely broke the tie by voting 8.gainst the measure, but instruct1ng the Secretary to place the matter on the agenda for the January 1957 (CRWCD, Oct. 16, 1956, Pages 3-9) meet1~ • tL-------@ ~ ~ I Aspen Page 26 "In his Ootober report, Smith wrote, "We have partioi- pated in meetings with water committees on West Divide Creek and ~ the Roaring Fork in the vioinity of Aspen. The West Divide group ~ sought my assistance in planning the expansion of their feeder ~ system from the Olear Fork of Muddy Creek, and the Aspen group ~ ~ ~ @ sought advice on the administration of water rights on the upper "@ ~ 9~ Roaring Fork. Also, liAs 8. reeul t of CommisSioner Dexheimer' ~ visit to Aspen on September 26th, we were requested by the Grand Junotior offioe of the Bureau of Reolamation to inform them of the developments accomplished by the Salvation Ditoh Company in improving their system, and their requirements for further improvements. We have made a pteliminary report to the Bureau and Will furnish further da.ta when it has been seoured. 1I ._~ (CRWCD, Oct. 16, 1956, Appendix A, Page 2) The Fryingpan..Arkansa.s Fro ject remained only a dream -or nightmare -- stalled in Congress as 1956 drew to a olose. still env1sioned a 28,000 acre-foot reservoir at Aspen. It James Ogilvie, Bureau of Reolamat10n administra.tive offioerr:in the Region VII offioe, revie".red the ~roject at a epecial meeting of the River District, State Water Board, Bureau offic1als and others in Glenwood Springs in December 1956. Ogilvie's discussion was lengthy and covered all pOints of the Fryingpan-Arkansas agreemen t exoept the IIno more ll provis10n. He gave credit to the Polioy & Review Commission "''hich had 1.'.;wri tten the agreement, noting they had recognized the recreational aspe.ot lIand they set up some very good principles relating to the stream flows. <§) ~'---------' ~ liThe oareful study th~ I Page 27 Aspet:l gave this resulted in the arriving ~ at some ort teria on part of the prinoiples and it sets up minimum ~ flows at three speoific pOints whioh, in oooperation With members ~ of the oommi ttee and the State Game and Fish and th e Fish and ~ Wildlife Servioes, represents reoognized thinking on the subjeot. @::§J @ Now these points on these minimum flows pertains to the point of .g:;, ~ ~ "@ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ diversion now that would be high on the divers10n streams, the on the streams where the diversion takes plaoe. po~nt The seoond point is the junotion at the North Fork and the Fryingpan River in the vioinity of Norrie ••• The third point pertains to reoommended flows 'l§l on the Roaring Fork into the head of Aspen reservoir. ! point i8 probably of some signifioanoe, partioularly to the Aspen ~ ~ ~ No~" the third people, in that the recommended flows take into oonsideration an agreement w1 th the T~ n Lakes Irrigation Company whereby they we uld curtail or atop diverting when the natural floWs of the Roaring Fork are equal Or less than the reoommended average flows that are entering tbe Aspen reservoir. Now that is a real signifioant point ,and it is sometimes a little bit hard to understand the mean1ng of principles. We have to put some study in on it but that means tba. t the Tw1n Lakes people are getting benefits from this proJect. Otherwise, waters will be diverted and stored in their partioular reservoir; the Twin Lakes reservoir, in Sugar Loaf reservoir, or in the Pueblo reservoir. from these stor~ges Now, the Tw1n Lakes people get benefits and by eo doing can ourtail the1r d1versions on the headwaters of the Roar1ng Fork. , - ... : ,,'t:". ," . I " You can readily see that ourtailment of the diversions on the headwaters of the Roaring Fork in critcally low water periods oan only result in benefits to those-flows on that stream. Ii (CR\~CD, Aspen Page 28 Former President Heuschkel was on hand at a special meeting of the Board in 'March 1957. II Mr. Heuschkel stated that during the past few years, run- off conditions in the Roaring Fork Basin and elsewhere in the Colorad River Basin have continua,lly worsened and he,ve become somewha.t acute ; that for the first time in the history of water administratio on the Crystal River, the Water Commissioner has been called upon during the past two years to shut off or cut down headgates of junior appropriators. Fork Va,lley. The same condition has developed along the Roaring He stated, IThis condition is the principal reason I ha.ve supported the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, because the Aspen Reservoir wo uld suppl emen t the Roaring FO,~k stream flow during the period when the rights of junior appropriators could not be filled. 1 He stated further, II think one of the greatest needs of this District is a repla.cement reservoir for the Roaring Fork River. I "Mr. Smith stated that if storage was needed on the Roaring Fork for western slope uses that it could be built under provisions of PubliC Law 485, which would not require that we trade some 69,000 acre-feet of water in order to obtain a few thousand acre-feet of needed storage capacity under the guise of replacement. Mr. Heuschk inquired, 'Would it be possible to get a reservoir above Aspen without the Fryingpan Project?' Mr. Smith replied that he thought so if the water users along':;1h e Roaring For.k could show justificatio for the storage and the desire to have it built. Mr. Heuschkel , inquired if the right for the FrYingpan-Arka.nsas Pro j ec t wo uld no t be senior to any rightfor storage bUil t for in-baSin use. Mr. Barnard @ iI.~--------------------------------------~ IAspen Page 29 o ~ stated that in view of the Supreme Court decision in regard to the ~ Blue River case that the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project could not get .g;, I 1::;: ;:;:: :;~ ~C::~::1 :r::r~~ ~r ene em en t of cons true t1 on. " ~ ~ ~ @:9) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ci A bit later, there came a discussion and a discussion that was to cause considerable uproar a few months later. "Mr. Smith reported that Mr. Roland Fischer of the Union Oil Company consulted him concerning the posSibility of the District filing on the Ruedi reservoir site on the Fryingpan River. He then read a letter addressed to Mr. Fischer from the City Manager of Grand Junction, Colorado, concerning Gtand Junction's interest in the Ruedi reservoir storage possibilities. suggesting that the City of Grand Junction ~d a Joint venture. the Union Oil Company file on the reservoir as ~. Porter inquired why these interests wanted the District to make the filing. Mr. Barnard suggested there might be some potential agricultural development under the reservoir. Mr. Smith explained that a plan had been suggested that a canal diverting from the Ruedi dam site about 100 feet above streambed elevation could be constructed around the south and west slope of Basalt . Mountain to the existing Missouri Heights Reservoir B,nd thereby give the Missouri Heights area an adequate water supply; that a power drop from this canal could be made to a power plant B,t Basalt to return it to the river releases from storage required by irrigation interests on the Roaring Fork, senior appropriators downstream along the Colora,do, the Union Oil Company I and the City of Grand Junction ••• II Mr. Nelson inquired if the District could make filings for @ i~------------~ IAspen Page 30 o ~ lndustrla.l purposes. Mr. Barnard replled ln the afflrmatlve, and ~ stated that a fl1lng on the Ruedl slte should have been made years ~ ago, but that the questlon was should the Dlstrlct make the fl1lng ij or the Unlon 011 Company B.nd the Cl ty of Grand Junctlon, or should ~ a conservancy dlstrlct be organlzed to accompllsh thls objectlve. ~ Judge Hughes suggested that the Boa.rd should offer Unlon 011 and .g} Ii=::J Ii=::J ~ ~ ~ ~ C;@ J Grand Junctlon any asslstance that our ~lme and funds would allow, bu that they should make thelr own fl1lng, and there belng no objectlons to Judge Hughes' vlews, Mr. Hansen dlrected the Secretary to act accordlngly and so advlse Mr. Flscher." (CRWCD, March 21, 1957, Pages 9-10) The seed had been planted and lt was the beglnnlng of the end of the Aspen reservolr unit of the Frylngpan-Arkansas Project. The Exeoutive Committee, meeting in June, learned more about Grand Junction's lnterest. IIMr. Sml th ••• report ed that ln 11ne wl th the water requlre... ments for the 011 shale industry, the 01ty of Grand Junctlon. had planned to make a flllng wlth the State Englneer for the Ruedl reservolr on Frylngpan Creek: that Mr. Cllfford Jex, an englneerlng represente.tlve of the Clty of Grand Junot1on, had v1s1ted the D1strilo offlces expla1n1ng that the Clty had planned to make th1s fl1ing jolntly w1th the Un10n 011 Oompany, but that the Un10n 011 Company had deo1ded to wl thdraw from the proposed enterprise; that Mr. Jex had 1nquired 1f Mr. Sm1th felt the Distriot would be 1nterested ln part1clpating in that fi11ng. Mr. Smlth stated be had told Mr. Jex he did not believe the Clty of Grand Junotlon coUld justlfy a clalm to the amount of water they proposed s~or1ng ln the Ruedi reservoir ~~ @> t'------~ Aspen Page 31 ~ along with their present rights on Kannah Oreek and their filings ~ for 125 feet of direot flow from eaoh of the Gunn1son and Oolorado ~ ~ Rivers near Grand Junot1on, and for th1s reason he f:81,t that 1f the ~ D1str1ot were to 1nterest itself in this filing, the filing shoUld ~ ~ be made in the name of the Distriot. ~ €8) He oontinued that if the Oity ~ of Grand Junotion were interested in finanoing the oost of making ~ Exeoutive Oomm1ttee at the meeting now in session. ~ this filing, that he woUld br1ng the matter to the attent10n of the Mr. Nelson ~ 1nquired if the filing oould be made before the adJud1oation now cI pend1ng was olosed. ~ , ~ ~ After d1soussion, it was deo1ded that the Distriot woUld make the f111ng if Grand Junot1on foroes performed the work under the superv1s1on of SeonetarY~Engineer Sm1th. It was further suggested that Mr. Willie.me and Mr. Nelson arrange a meet1ng to disouse the matter with proper city officials of Grand Junotion, whioh meeting woUld be attended by Messrs. Smith and Barnard." (CRWCDEC, June 11, 1951, Page 6) At the JUly Board meet1ng, Sm1th reported, "The Ruedi Reservoir site is a proposed replaoement feature of the Blue-South Platte ProJeot ••• ThiS site WaS not ut11ized in the Cl1ffs.D1vide invest1gations for potent1al i~basin development. The Cliffs-D1vide ProJeot, however, did, did propose a plan for the development of a water supply from tributaries of the J'ryingpan River to serve some 18,000 aores of land in the Oattle Creek Unit. This Unit had a benefit-oost ratio of less than woity and, therefore, was not included in the conditionally authorized partio1pat1ng proJeots listed in Publio Law 485. I have made some reoent studies that indicate that the Cattle Creek Unit oan be served from the Ruedi @ ~~------------~ ji .g;, ~ ! ~ ~ €8l ~ ~ ~ ~ ':§ J l IAspen Page 32 Reservolr wlth better feaslblllty than the plan for the Cattle Oreek Unlt ln the Cllffs Divide Project. There is the possibility -of an attractlve power development under the Ruedi plan ••• At our meeting in Gl enwood Sprlngs, Mr. Jex appeared to be ln agreement wl th Mr. Barnard and I ••• However, on the following day when I met wlth Mr. Jex in Grand Junctlon he had changed his positlon and stated he was not interested in carrylng a proposal to the Oity Manager of Grand Junctlon that Grand Junctlon flnance or ass 1st ln financing a flllng on the Ruedl site unless theY shared dlrectly ln water rlghts. The questlon we face is, if the Board deslres to flle on the Ruedl reservolr to the extent of some 100,000 acre-feet, as well as on r dlrect flow in the Frylngpan Rlver, to supply the Cattle Creek area :% years and would probablY render that project infeaslble. II ~ o II and a power plant at Basalt, lt wlll deflnltely cut lnto the proposed water supply for the JUly Fryingpan~Arkansas diversion during low water (CRWOD, 16. 1957. Page 4_5) Followlng a short discussion of thls and a fillng on the Upper Gunnlson Basln, :'~ylng Taylor Park lnto Oureoanti !i.S a further dlversion deterrent, Porter moved: "I move that the Board authorize the Seoretary.. Engineer and Attorney to prooeed wlth steps toward filing on the Ruedi and Upper Gunnlson BaSin development plans, the prlority of such work to be determined by the Seoretary-Engineer and the Attorney aocording to the exigenoies of the s1tuation, and that 1n addition to filing on both of these projeots that we proceed to decree as rapidly as possible. " "Mr. Porter's motion was seoonded by Mr. Gerbaz. Following <§ 5 I Aspen Page 33 ,~~~--.~----~--------~ further d1souss1on, the mot1on was voted upon and passed w1thout ~ ~ d1ssent1ng vote. II (Ib1d., Page 7) .g} Later, 1n a d1souss1on of reoommended pr1or1t1es for ~ ~ part101pat1ng ~ to the status of Woody Creek Projeot as a potent1al part101pat1ng C€& projeot. \;::::) \;::::) ~ ~ prOjeO~w1th1n the D1str1ot, uMr. Nelson lnqu1red as Mr. Sm1th rep11ed that the reoonna1ssanoe study on the Woody Oreek ProJeot showed 1t was capable of mak1ng full repayment ~ "@ and therefore should not be olassed as a part101pating pr6.jeot. ~ Mr. Gerbaz stated the water users in that projeot area were not ~ § ~ interested 1n the projeot as planned by the Bureau of Reolamat1on beoause of the high oost for developing only ten Ji additional water. ~ ~ \;::::) seoon~feet of Mr. Smith explained that most of that cost resUlt- ed from rehabil1tation of the Salvation Ditoh, the pr1me feature of the projeot. Mr. Ger,baz agreed to 1nquire of the water users 1n the Woody Creek area the1r interest in further study of the projeot by the Bureau of Investigation and to inform the Distriot offioe in a few days of h1s find1ngs~'11 (Ib1d., Page 8) Sm1th reported at the Ootober Board meet1ng: "A prelim1nary f1ling, 1n three sheets, for the Basalt Projeot was aocepted by the State Engineer on September 25th, 1957. the storage of 140,000 aor~feet Th1s f111ng prov1des for in Ruedi Rservoir on the Frylngpan River and direct flow rights to some 560 seoon~feet from the Fryingpan River and from Cattle, CoUlter and Sopris Creeks. work for this filing was performed by Distr10t personnel. Survey However, we are now continuing surveys of the water delivery fao1lit1es of the projeot by contraot. 1I (CRWCD, Oct. 15, 1957, Append1x A, Page l' Barnard reported that after the f1l1ng W1th the State @J is'=> ~ I Aspen Page 34 "r-=---:----..------=-=-=--=---:--:------:----=-~. ------:---=-=--~ Dlgineer, " ••• we filed a statement of olaim also in pending adjud_ ~ ~ ication proceedings in the Garfield County Distriot Court in Water cg} II ::::::::Q~:: d::Q::~o::r.:p:::t8:rW:h:r:::::-:t:::::::~' .::::n:na ~ oonditional deoree for a total of 140,697.3 aore.feet of storage ~ in the Ruedi Reservoir, 600 second-feet direct flow through the ~ ~ @ '=@ ~ Basalt Conduit, the Landis Canal, and the Stockmen's Ditch Extension ~ and enlargement, and 50 seoond-feet to be released or by_passed at t e ~ Rue~1 Reservoir for the preservation of scenio attractions and wild- i ~ ~ life in the Fryin'gpan River between the dam and the inflow of down_ stream tributaries. At the conclusion of the presentation of test- imony, the proceedings were oontinued to November 12, as I reported to you in conneotion with the West Divide Project. There is little doubt in my mind that the conditional deoree we request will be granted by the oourt." (ORWCD, Oct. 15,1957, Appendix B, Page 3) At the December Exeoutive Committee meeting, Barnard "itated that Judge Darrow had entered an order on November 12th closing the adjudioation in Water District 38 and had assured Mr. Barnard that hiS presentation >9f ola1m for the Basalt and West D1vide Projects 1n that D1str1ot were in order. Mr. Barnard stated that he had tendered h1s find1ngs of faot and form of statement of the d,~eoree for those two pro jeote; that he had reoe1ved an order from Judge Darrow dur1ng the last week requiring all claimants in Water Distr10t 38 to submit their f1ndings of fact by January 4, 1958; that it Will probablY be in Maroh before a decree 1s rendered. Mr. Brown 1nquired as to the number of claimants in th1s latter adjudication and Mr. Barnard stated 1t was in the range of seventy @ t~--~ to eighty.1I ~ *~ IAspen Page 35 (CRWCDEC, Dec. 19,1958, Page.l") But a key claimant was missing, a fact that would come to light in a few short months and cause a bit of an uproar. ~ Le.te in 1957, Barnard, apparently wary of the turn in ~ the Eagle County adjudication, proposed that the District seek ~ ~ €9) @ authority for a higher levy and if granted, establish a construct- "@ ~ ion fund. ~ survive appeal, in which caSe the District woUld need to perform His idea was that the Map and Statement Act might not due diligence to protect its claims. The Board agreed and a bill was introduoed and passed by the Legislature early in 1958. At the April 1958 meeting, "President Hansen inquired of the Seoretary what aotion should be taken at this time by the Board conoerning the budget f.or the Distriot for oalendar year 1959. Mr. Smith rep11ed that a suggested budget should be presented to the Board for their consideration at the July meeting, and that in preparation of that budget it was neoessary to know whether the Board planned to ohange the present mill levy in support of the current budget. He also noted that in the last State Legislature the Act creating The Colorado River Water Conservation District had been revised to allow the District to make a levy for construction purposes up to .2 ~ta mill, and that some consideration shoUld be given by the Board at this time as to whether they desired to make a levy under this provision for calendar year 1959. "Mr. Gerbaz commented that Pitkin County waS in favor of establishment of a construction fund. Mr. Porter suggested that if e. construction levy was to be made that some reduction should be made in the levy provided for lhthe original Distr1ct Act and now @ [S:::> IAspen ~ Page 36 used for general operational and administrative expenses of the ,~--------------~ ~ ~ Distriot. ~ wise to inorease the overall levy for the District at this time and ~ that, if a construotion levy was to be made, the general levy should ~ be reduced by a like amount. @:9J @ "1§J position in this view.1I (ORWOD, April 15, 1958, Page 9) .gs, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 'i§J ~ • ~ ~ Mr. Porter continued that he did not think it would be Mr. Hansen supported Mr. PorterOs After discussion, the Board direoted that the Secretary prepare a suggested budget for 1959 based on a .2 mill levy. The explosion made inevitable when the River Distriot filed on and pursued its claims for the Basalt Project had occurred on July 1, lees than two weeks after the decree had been entered by Judge Darrow. It brought phone calls from congressm,n and Governor McNichols and Oolorado Water Conservation Board Direotor Felix Sparks to the July Board meeting. the Ruedi chapter. The event is recounted 1n Shortly after;, ·.the Ruedi reservoir plan succeed- ed the Aspen reservoir as the main West Slope feature of the Fryingpan-Arkaneas. Later in the meeting, ~~reeident Hansen oalled for consid- eration of a possible levy for construction purposes, made possible by an amendment to the 1937 act creating the District. Each of the Board members commented to the effect that they felt a levy for construction purposes this year would be unpopular in their counties, with the exception of Mr. Gerbaz, who stated he felt his county would be glad to go along with a levy for this purpose if it was determined to be necessary. Mr. Horn commented that if a definite need for construotion funds arose ~he matter could be brought up again later. 1I (CRWCD, July 15, 1958, Page 16) Aspen Page 37 The Executive Committee met July 31 in Denver with Colorado Water Board Director Larry Sparks and propOD0fits of the Fryingpan_ Arkansas diversion to resolve the problem posed by the District's decree to the Basalt Project. A tentative agreement was reached, l1li the second principle of which is germane here: II That plane for the Western' Slope storage and replacement features of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project Would be revised so that they may be correlated and coordinated with plans for the Basalt project, the plans for which Basalt Project may also be rev1sed so as to accomplish such correlat10n and coordinat10n, all w1thin feasibility limits. Provided, however, that the cost of construct10 of such revised or changed storage and replacement facilities shall be equal to, but shall not exceed, a sum of money which shall bear the same proportionto the total cost of the Fryingpan-Arkansae o ~ I Project when completed as the proposed Aspen reservoir would have borne to the total cost if the same were to be constructed and completed. II (CRWCD, Aug. 28, 1958, Appendix A, Page 2) . Thus died the Aspen reserv01r feature of the FryingpanArkansas Project. IIMr~ Sm1th explained that the idea behind the second prin- cipal had originated with him based as follows: That the Aspen reservoir, as proposed in the 1951 Fryingpan-ArkansRs Project report, B,nd in all authorization legislat10n for that project, was neither popular in the Aspen area nor attractive from a construotion cost viewpoint; that if the estimated cost o~ the Aspen reservoir, $7,000 ,000, were expended in the construction of reservoir s at more attractive and strategio looations in the Roaring Fork, and perhaps @ [S:::> I Aspen ~ Page 38 ,~--------------~ 8 the Eagle River drainage, system, that the same replac:emsnt could be accomp11shed and that many times the storage capacity of the Aspen reservoir could be provided. He noted that all the needed replacement on the Roaring Fork above the mouth of the Fryingpan could be provided at either the Taggart Lake or the Difficult Creek reservoir sites, and that the Ruedi reservoir on the Fryingpan River, wi th a capacity of about 80,000 aore-feet, and the Iron Mountain on the Eagle River, with a capacity of about 70,000 Rese~v01r aor~ feet, could be constructed for approx1matelY the estimated cost of the Aspen Reservoir. Following extended discuss10n of this, Mr. 8mi th commented that 1t appeared to h1m that the urgency for aotion by the Board was eliminated s1nce Congress had fa11ed to authorize the Fry1ngpan-Arkansas Projeot in this session. Mr. Barnard stated he felt that action should be taken by the Board on the proposal of the Executive Committee because unless the Bureau of Reclamat10n was assured of a basis of agreement they would be unw111ing to make the stUdies necessary on. the alternat1ve western Colorado storage s1tes for inclusion in a new au~horization b1ll for the Fru..ingpan- Arkansas Projeot to be oons1dered by the next Congress. II Mr. Nelson po1nt ad out that a proposal would be made to the State Water Board at their scheduled meeting on September 17th that state funds be allocated to ass1st the Bureau of Reclamat10n in making the studies for alternative western Colorado storage to the Aspen Reserv01r~1I (CRWCD, Aug. 28,1958, Page 4) Follow1ng further d1scuss1on, Mr. Brown moved IIthat the President of the Board appo1nt a oommittee of three to cont1nue work on the plan of ooordinat1ng the water r1ghts for the Basalt @ ~~------------~ I Aspen Page 39 ~ and ~ Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Bureau of Reolamation to ~ study the feasibility of alternative storage sites in Western Colo- ~ rado to the Aspen Reservoir as features of the FrYingpan-Arkansas ~ ~ Projeot, and that the oommittee be prepared to make a report to the Fr~ingpan-Arkansas Projeots, and that We ask, through the ~ ~ ~ @::9> @ '=t§J ~ ~ full Board of this Distriot at its next meeting.' Upon seoond by Mr. Williams, the motion was voted upon and passed unan1;mOLlSly." ( Ibid., Page 5) Barnard, Delaney, and Brown were named as the oommittee, with Smith to assist them as an ex-offioio member. The Asp'en reservoir question was debated inoreasingly as 1958 drew to a olose, primarilY because with the Ruedi reservoir decree having reopen.18d. -- in effect __ the Fryingpan-Arkansas question, a decision had to be made on whether to abandon Aspen. 7, At the November Board meeting, Smith read a Nov. 1958 letter addressed to the Aspen City Council, with attachments, copies of which had been mailed to the District, pertaining to water problems in the Aspen area. uFollowing an extended disoussion, Mr. Horn moved that in compliance with the suggestion oontained in Appendix IDI Mr. Smith be authorized and directed to assist the Aspen interests with their problem. Upon second by Mr. Williams, the motion was voted upon and passed unanimously." (CRWCD, Nov. 14, 1958, Page 34), Attached to the letter cited was a resolution adopted by the Aspen Utility Board: "That the Manager of the Aspen Munioipal Eleotric Departmen be, and he is here~1, authorized and directed to contact the ,1---_ _----' @ \Aspen Page 40 ~ Secretary of the Colorado River Water Conservation aistrict Board ~ to request said Board to aSSist in investigating the feasibility of ~ the construction of a dam on the Roaring fork River below the con- ij fluence of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek for the purpose of providin ~ electrio power for the City of Aspen and water for irrigation below @ @ said dam and to determine if such a project, if feasible, coUld ~ ~ ~ "'@ ~ ~ ~ ~ qualify under the Small Projects Act of the Federal Government." (CRWCD, Nov. 14, 1958, Appendix D, Page 2) The prea~ble to the resolution noted that the Aspen electri <§l ; ~ plant was some 70 years old and was fed by t't·!O separate flumes, one out of Castle Creek and one out of Maroon Creek converging above the power plant. It indicated that the installation was not up to supplying the steadily increasing demand of a growing Aspen, at least on a reliable basis. During the quarter, Smith reported, "we have met on numerou occasions with representatives of the State Water Board and the Bureau of Reclamation, both in the field and in Denver, relative to alternative replacement and compensatory storage sites for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Projeot. It i8 my understanding that the State Water Board aSSigned $75,000 of its budgeted cooperative funds to Region 7 of the Bureau of Reclamation for the purpose of financing investigational studies for alternative sites. liOn October 1st, and again on October 15th, I worked in the Aspen area with representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation and the State Water Board on determining locations of potential reservoirs alternative to the Aspen s1te. We visited Tagert Lake and D1ff1cult Creek sites on the Roar1ng Fork and traversed Castle Creek, tr1butar ." @ i'------- Aspen Page 41 ~ to the Roaring Fork just west of Aspen. On Ootober 15th, I also ~ worked with Mr. R. O. Anderson, who is in oharge of the Aspen ~ I ~ ~ Munioipal Eleotrioal System, with regard to munioipal water problems. "Mr. Mansfi eld Merriman, the ranking Bureau geologist, ~ on our Ootober 1st field trip, rejeoted the Tagert Lake site beoause €9) @ of foundation oonditions and took a rather dim view of the foundatio ~ <=@ ~ ~ oonditions ~t the Diffioult site. Upon traversing Castle Creek, we found limited storage possibilities at three potential sites. ~ Mr. Merriman, however, was fearful of foundation oonditions at all 1 J exoept the upper site, whl.oh would involve the oonstruotion of a dam '1§) approximately 120 feet in height to store some six to eight thousand ~ aore-feet of water. t ~ This dam woUld be looated on Castle Cteek proper, approximately two miles downstream from the town of Ashoroft. The Bureau of Reclamation representatives Were inclined to rej eot this Site because of the diffioulty that would be expel'.lenoed in transmitting the water stored from Castle Creek to a point on the Roaring Fork above the heading for the Salvation Ditoh. In my disoussions with Mr. Anderson of the Aspen Municipal Electric System, I learned that the City of Aspen had acqu1red, by purchase, the old rights on Maroon Creek and Castle Creek established for the generation of electrical power at the Aspen Power ,lant. Their right on Maroon Creek is for 68" second-feet, and on Castle Creek for 165 second feet. These two streams have been diverted at such pOints as to provide an effective head of approximately 400 feet at the power plant which i8 located in west Aspen. In l"'ecent years Aspen has suffered oonsiderable diffioulty in maintaining their flume diversion to supply their plant, whioh is now temporarily shut down. Page 42 IAspen A substitute Souroe of poWer was found underl.8. temporary contraot with the Bureau of Reclamation for Oolorado_Big Thompson Project power, wheeled to Aspen over lines of the Publio Service Oompany of Colorado and the Holy Cross Rural Electriclfl'cfation ·Aesocia tion. . ., Mr. Anderson expressed the opinion that the best source of municiPal water for Aspen, a very pertinent subject at this time, would be available at the tailraoe of the Aspen power plant. It would appear to me that if Aspen were in a position to help finance a conduit from Castle Creek to their power plant that an extension of this conduit could be made on across the valley of the Roaring Fork to the Salvation Ditch to supplement, when needed, the water they are able to divert from the Roaring. Fork River at their headgate, a short distance upstream from Aspen. I believe that these possib- 111ties should be taken into acoount by representat1ves of the Bureau of Reclamation and the State Water Board working on alternative storage sites for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project replaoement and compensatory storage. II (CRWCD, Nov. 14, 1958, Appendix A, Pa.ges 3_4) Smi th went on to o'o,te the Bureau and State Wat er Board was inve~tigating ~eplacement the Iron Mountain Reservoir on Homestake Creek for and compensatory use. He said the site they were studying would not aocomplish the purposes the District had 1n mind for that project • II I further pointed out that, in my opinion, before thie Board would agree to any alternative.:storage sites that it would insist that full considerat10n be given to storage development at ~.h~. R:uedi s1 te on the Fryingpan River in order that the Cattle @) ~'----- Page 42 Aspen ~ Creek, Mlssourl Helghts, Sprlng Valley and Soprls Creek areas could ~ be provlded a dependable water supply, and that related storage I cg;, ~ benefl ts would be avallable to the Roarlng Fork Basln whlch would sustaln most of the adverse effects from the Frylngpan-Arkansas R ~ R @:9) Pro ject dl verslons. II In the meetlng, Gerbaz queBtloned Larry Sparks about a @ "@ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ §J ~ <@) ~ t ~ R (Ibld., Pages 4-5) story ln the Sept. 28, 1958 edltlon of the Dally Sentlnel. Gerbaz read: III The sl tes are belng lnvestlgated as al. ternates for the proposed Aspen Reservolr, whlch ls scheduled as a unlt of the Frylngpan~Arkansas transmountaln dlverslon. Sparks commented that lf the Aspen reservolr ls not constructed Pltkln County wlll have suffered a great loss; nevertheless, there ls no polnt ln attemptlng to butld the reservolr lf local oppOSition continues to exist.' "Gerbaz contlnued: There ls a llttle dlfferenoe there maybe ln the way 1 t ls lnterpreted. opposing storage. Now, I don I t know who up there is That ls the flrst questlon I have. who is opposing storage as such. Now there may be. I dontt know I am not cri ticiz1ng; I am· Just asking, because I don't know who they are. II (CRWCD, Nov. 14, 1958, Pages 25-6) Bill Nelson of the Sentlnel replied: II They are oppOSing the Aspen reservoir site. II Gerba21 replied: IINot a1 together, no. As I understand it, one of the Sites that was surveyed, the Diffioult site -- isn't that the upper reaches of the Aspen Reservoir? They say it isn't feaslb1 • Why isn't the upper reaches feaSible and the lower is? We never did think the Aspen Reservoir was a proper site for a dam, because they @) [So I Aspen t~----------------~ have to put a cement floor on the bottom to hold It. ~ sltuatlon at the upper end. ~ feasible below. .g;, ~ @) Il@ ~ €9> ~ ~ ~ "I can ans:w"r that qulte easily,.' such, because the Salvation Ditch could be enlarged to its -- I thin it has a decree for something like 90 feet and is now only taking [@ low flow, as you know. And that water is Simply not available in periods of Wlth some storage lt would be available. '@l would be some storage for the Town of Aspen. ! to firm up the flOW of the Roarlng Fork. t ~ A We have Ditch, not that it is necessary to the Fryingpan-Arkansas plan as 9.bout )0 feet. ~ If lt lsn't f·easlble up there it is not tried to get some storage on the RCllar1ng Fork for the Salvation ~ 1 It ls the same These are the questions asked me up there. II Sparks replled: ~ Page 4) over here. It There would be storage Now that WaS the th1nk1ng You must remember that it was this Board who requested the Aspen Reservoir in the first place, and its location. say the upper slte is not feasible for the Simple reason, Now, I engineerin~ Wise, you are going upstream and you lose part of the natural basln there. So for the same amount of water you would have to double the helght of your dam. Then you get up to flfteen or twenty millio dollars for the same amount of water. What we were thinking about, however, was a smaller slte, purely to take care of the Salvation D1tch and for any other USes that mlght develop around Aspen. But when you· start bu11d1ng a small four or f1ve thousand foot dam your cost per foot is so much greater than when you build a 28,000 foot dam, because you have the same foundation problems no matter where you go on the Roar1ng Fork. Your cond1t1ons are the same; we found them to be the same anywhere up and do~ the Roaring Fork. The Roaring Fork is a very steep stream, with a heavy glaoial overlay. Aspen Page 44 80 the farther up you go the more impraotioal 1t gets for to get the storage -- you get up just a few m11es above the Aspen s1 te, you may ha.ve to go 500 feet w1 th a dam, to get the same amount of storage you 00 uld have gotten at the Aspen reserv01r s1 tee simply an engineering problem. It is I assure you th1s, the engineers we have had work1ng on that problem are not only outstand1ng engineers in the world. Unite~,States, they are outstanding engineers 1n the The man that went up there with me is a ohief earthen dam man for the Bureau of Reclamation, not just for ·Colorado, but for the United States, and he has built dams allover the world for foreign governments and for designment for the United States ••• The Bureau builds these things in the f1nal analys1s and they say this thing is go1ng to oost ten million dollars for 8000 feet.' We can build it if that is what you want, but I don't think that is what you want. I don't think you want to pay, say, four million dollars for 6000 feet, or even a million dollars. And that upper site was not a replacement as such for the Aspen; it was only a partial replacement of smaller capac1ty. And we are not f1nished with that yet, and we will present that plan to this Board and tell you how much it will cost and how much storage you can get, and it will be up to this Board to aocept it or reject it. We hope to present half a dozen d1fferent plans, we g1ve you the cost, how muoh we can store and what it w11l be, so you w1ll have what we hope is e. wide oho1oe. Now we are trying to undertake work in a few months that normally takes the Bureau years to do. That bunoh over there is working every minute and the staff of our Board hs.s part1c1pated 1n these plans. As I say, whatever plan we work out, we w1l1 have @l t'----------' ~ mUlt1ple plans and they will be presented here." ~ Page 45 Aspen (Ib1d., Pages 26-7) Later, Sparks noted: "Remember, the Aspen Reservoir is not ~ ~ an eoonomioal thing. ~ economioal, but that is what western Colorado wanted and so the stat ~ went along with that and the,t is what we oame up with. ~ ~ ~ €9) § It can never be done on 1ts own. It 1s not That's what your Board that was appointed here; that is What you oame up w1 th "'@ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ at that time. • ~ ~ As Mr. Gerbaz po1nted out, it is very expensive for 28,000 feet of water. But, nevertheless, the Bureau planned 1t as part of the Fryingpan Projeot." (Ibid., Page 28) And later, "I just want to make it olear that so far as the ~ ~ ~ €9) ~ believed "it would be imperatlve that there be some sort of form of storage above Aspen 1i , sald: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (Ibid.) II Mr. Chairman, there were some very de~inite advantages ·to the Roarlng Fork Valley from the Aspen reservoir aside from protecting their rights frmm Arkansas diversion. being affected by the Fryingpe.n- The Aspen reservoir provides for the replace- "@) ment requirements, it provided the replaoement requirements, oonsid- I ering the full decrees of those ditohes, not their present or his- • ~ ~ toric dlversion~ . /'/~ , but their full deorees. It also provided to make up natural shortages whlch have hlstorically occurred. All of those things were taken into consideration in the planning of Aspen reser_ voir. So it would not only take care of replacement for present uses, but it would take care of replacement for future uses up to their deorees, and take care of, to some extent, of shortages which lvould have historically occurred beoause of natural oonditions, and it Would also have provided for extended use, replacement use, in the Colorado River Basin. oonsideration. exten~ed All those things were taken into In planning the Aspen Reservoir it definitely had some advantages to the Roaring Fork whioh the Ruedi would not have. Now, I am not putting in a plea for either one of them, just trying to olear the reoord. II (Ibid., Page 19) II So far as the Bureau is concerned, we don I t care where you put that reservoir. If you we uld eliminate it altogether We @ ~'-------------' ! Aspen Page 50 The onlY reason it doeon l t have to stand on Would be 'Very Ilo.ppy. its own merits, so far feasibility is concerned, is because the QS cost is absorbed so far as project costs and repayment is concerned. I don't think over here you could afford to build the Aspen reser_ voir and operate it alone. is becaflf3e the'.~a;st The only reason you get the benefits . slope is paying for it. II (Ibid.) "The foundation condi tiona at the Aspen was the big reason for the high feasible. cos~ but the reservoir is feasible. The dam site is It is expensive, because it 1s not the best slte, but it is safe. It (Ibid., Page 20) Later, Gerbaz asked if the Castle Creek dam Site, the Ashcroft, was studied. Sparks said it was examined and had only a small amount of possible storage. Fred Boydston, senior hydro- loglet, Colorado Water Conservation Boa.rd, said, "It seems like three thousand or four thousand. We never d.id run a survey on it. II Leonard KUiper, the Water Boardls supervising hydrologist, added, IIWe coUldn't get the water where we wanted to.1I And Barrett noted, "That valley fallS faster than it appears. II Gerbaz aSked about Maroon Creek. (Ibid., Page 22) Barrett said a Bureau eng1neer "did dr1ve up Maroon Creek and back down and didn1t see anything that was good. There are no good dam sites over in there; he didn't see anything that was remotely good." Smith noted, Creek site. II Mr. (Ibid., Page 36) Sparks mentioned leakage at the Difficult And there would no doubt be some leakage there as the condit10ns are the same as at the Aspen site, and I think that is probably right. I would say that if you drilled a 400_foot hole there that you Would have much better likelihood of strik1ng bedrock @ ~L----- _ _- - - . - - J IAspen . Page 51 ~ and they didn't strike it at 400 feet on the Aspen ground. ~ up at that Taggart Lake site you could have a lot of leakage that But even I would have to come down anyway, as far e.S that is oonc erned.. II ~ Page :37) ~ H ~ H €§) ~ ~ After more debate .. Sparks said, III think we are going to have to provide some storage no matter how much it costs on the Roaring Fork, a small amount of storage to get those ditohes satis- ~ ~ 1 the Difficult site. '@ so much water has to be there for fish flows. ! is going to helP out some below .. not .. of course .. as much as the ~ • ~ H (Ibid, fied there, to give them a full water supply. the creek down beloW. Aspen reservoir. It is going to help We are going to take care of the Creek above We will change our operating principles to say Then the reservoir I think we are going to have to construct some storage at Difficult, regardless of the cost. \I Finally, after more debate,; II Mr. (Ibid ... ·'Pages 42-3) Horn moved that the Chair appoint a oommittee of three to represent the District in negotiations for the location of repl~cement and oompensatory storage for the Fryingpan_Arkansas Project, with authority limited to recommendations to the full Board of Directors. Upon seoond by Mr. Jones, the motion waS voted upon and passed unanimouslY." (Ibid., Page 47) Hansen appointed Robert Delaney, chairman, R. B. Williams and John Barnard, Sr ... as the committee. Sparks then commented: connection with this problem. "I want to emphasize one thing in A be.sic deciSion must be made by this Board, first, as to whether or not to abandon the Aspen reservoir. This is not a deciSion that the Water Board has made or <§ ~L- ______________________________ ~bl Aspen Page 52 ~ the Bureau. ~ to have to make. ~ decides to abandon the Aspen Reservoir site, a further decision @ ~ ~ <§ That is the decision which we think this Board is going That is the basic decis1on. Assuming the Board must be made as to whether or not this small amount of replacement !lIRJ storage of approximately 3700 feet should be constructed at the @ @ "'@ Difficult site. ~ ~ ~ That w111 be extremely expensive storage, you know that, and in all probability the cost of that otorage may even be upwards of a m111ion dollars, which woUld cut down on the balance ~ of the storage I ( Ibid. ) ~ I ~ ~t another eite. Those basic decisions must be made. I Barnard J in his quarterly report for January 1959, noted, uIn view of the fact that the Basill t Project must be considered and carried to a point where its authorization as a part1cipating pro_ ject may be consumated, it seems to me that it is essential that Region 4 of the Bureau of Reclamation partiCipate in the studies being made having to do with storage in Western Colorado as a til ubsti tute for the Aspen reservoir.1I (CRWCD, Jan. 20, 1959, : Appendix B, Pages 2-3> "At the request of President Hansen, the Secretary-Eilgin.eer fur:ther discussed his recent meeting with Regional Director Larson and members of his staff in Salt Lake City. Mr. Barnard suggested that the Board take action in the form of a motion or resolution, requesting Regional Director Larson to have personnel of Region 4 participate in the studies for replacement and compensatory storage for the FrYingpan-Arkansas Project. After considerable discussion, Mr. Delaney introduced the follOWing motion: II move that this Board request Region 4 of the Bureau of Reclamation to deSignate Region 4 representatives to assist the POlicy and ReView Committee @ ISo i~--------------~ I Aspen Page 53 ~ for the ~ as possible, for the development of the irrigation features of the ~ ~ ~ R @ ~ R @;9) ~ Fryingpan~Arkansas Project and to initiate studies, insofar Basalt Project as a participating project under the provisions of Public Law 485. I further move that copies of this motion be sent to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and to Regional Director 4 of the Bureau of Reclamation. I Upon second by Mr. JoneS and ~ Mr. Porter, the motion was voted upon end passed unanimously. Y ~ (CRWCD, Jan. 20, 1959, Page 5) ~ Bob Delaney, chairman of the Committee on Fryingpan-Arkansas ~ ~ §J ~ Project negotiations, reported that "the actions of the committee had been limited since it was necessary for it to await engineering and economic data relative to compensatory storage in western Colorado, which information was to be determined by the staff of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. o Mr. Delaney commented that he felt the ~ committee needed a little guidance from the fUll Board on this matter i He stated he felt the committee shoUld inSist that sufficient water be retained in the decree to serve the irrigation requirements under the Basalt Project, that the water rights for the West Divide Project shoUld be preserved, and that we shoUld be careful in these negotiations not to Jeopardize western Colorado useS of water by ignoring provisions of the Colorado River Compacts. After an extended discussion, but without official action, the Board indicated the committee was to have a free hand in impending negotiations, with the understanding that any official action taken by the District woUld have to come from the full Board. II (CRWCD, Jan. 20, 1959, Page 4) Later, President Hansen asked the Secretary-Engineer to make ---"-a report on ,the aid he had given the City of Aspen officials - ~ "';-_',1 _ .... '. @l ~~------------~ \Aspen Page 54 ~ relative to coordination of their municipal water and power needs ~ With the proposed replacement and compensatory storage facilities IAspen Page 57 ~ that Aspen has some compensation due them in lieu of the additional ~ d1versions the project will make possible through the Twin Lakes ,g;, e system. • •• IIJim Smith is anxious to get flood control through h1s R @) n@ R @ ~ ~ ~ place. With the enlargement of th~ Twin Lakes Reservoir an addition al 15,000 acre-feet annually will be diverted from the Roaring Fork through the Twin Lakes Tunnel. A considerable part of that 15,000 ~ acre-feet will come off the flood flows. i they Will cut into the lower flows if they are Willing to go to ~ ~ It is possible, however, court with the Salvation Ditch people and cha,rge abandonment of a part of their right. 1I Ba,rnard asked, during the 'flood flows? o ~ I II Couldnl t they get that 15,000 acre-feet Why spend the money to a.tta.ck that existing decree? "Some years they can get all of it in the flood flows." Smith answered, IIbut there will some years when they can divert litt e more from flood flows than they have diverted in the past. II Nelson asked: liAS the thing is now set up there was to be fish flows in the Roaring Fork, is that right?1! IIMa,ybe,tI Smith answered; IIIf the Twin Lakes people Will agree to it and take an e!:cha,nge of Hunter Creek water diverted through the Fryingpan tunnel. II (Ibid., Page 3) Nelson said he thought this had been set up but Smith said tlIt is not fixed in the Operating Principles; it is contingent j on the Twin Lakes ,eople agreeing to it -- I mean that 3,000 acrefeet of excha,nge. II , @ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ H Page 58 Nelson asked: "If they take more water; if the7 use the storage in Ashcroft, woUldn't that leave Twin Lakes _. '" "That doesn't co unt, II Smi th answered. II The 15,000 acre-f eet is in addi tion to that they are getting now." ~ H @ § Aspen '-----,-----,---------' "Don't they have to sign an agreement if they get that?1I Nelson asked. II If the Twin Lakes decides they want this 15,000 "'@ ~ acre-feet extra and if they get it through the Fryingpan facilities ~ doni t they have to agree to the Fryingpan principles?" "I don't think SO,II Smith replied. IIThey may use the storage, but it belongs to the Fryingpan Pro ject. II "Gerbaz was inSistent a couple of weekS ago about this matter and I wanted to get it straight in my mind,1I Nelson said. III thought the Roaring Fork deal was pretty much set up outSide of the fuss, but·t~a.t if they got the water they would have to abide by the Operating Principl es. II "That is quite possiblY true," Barnard said; IIbut they have to abide by the Operating Principles through the Fryingpan Project itself. Tha,t 15,000 acre-feet additional diverSion from the Roaring Fork under the Twin La.kes decree, the benefit from it Will first accrue to the Fryingpan Project for power purposes and after that I think it becomes a part of the Twin Lakes system for irrigation purposes, and if that is true the Twin Lakes Company woUld have to reimburse the Fryingpan Project for their share of the construotion oosts andloperation." (Ibid., Page 4) A bit later, Smith said, "I think the Tagert site I reoom... mended on the Roaring Frok we Uld serve Aspen the best. As you will reoall, the Bureau geologists threw it out, but I have known them to @ i~-------l I Aspen Page 59 1 ~ be wrong before. I think it should be included in the investigation ~ that they put down at least one drill hole at that site as it would ~ assist in giving some flood protection for the town of Aspen and the ~ Roaring Fork proper. II .g} ~ ~ "Which will hold the most water, the ~ @:§> @ ~ "Both would be approximatelY 5,000 acre-feet,1I Smith said. ~ ~ ~ "@ Be.rne.rd asked, ~ II So far as flood control is conc erned, is there any place that would provide too much flood protection,1I IINo, and I wouldn't say that the Aspen site would either," Smith answered. ~ t or Ashcroft?1I Nelson aSked. ~ ~ ~agert II If I understood Asp inall correctly, II Nel son said; line told me he is insistent upon an egreement. I interpreted that to mean he wants the Pitkin County people satisfied. Politically, he doesn't want them on his neck e.nd at least he wants to be satisfied th~ will not go back and oppose the project. II "Nobody can guarantee that, II Barnard said. upon the be.sic impulses. II It will depend If they want Asp en to get as much as possible then the bill will provide that. If they want to defeat th project you can't put enough in there -- thew will scream to heaven about something else. 1I (Ibid. J Page S) After considerable more debate about the various aspects of the FrYingpan-Arkansas Project, the vote waS for the Policy and Review Committee to travel to Washington to get their questions answered. A memorandum from Smith on the activities of the Policy and Review Committee describes the Washington trip, but makes no men ion @ ~'--------------' \Aspen Page 60 ~ of the Roaring Fork storage and flood control discussed at the ~ Denver meeting. ~ I (QRWCD, April 21, 1959, Appendix B) The issues a.pparently were resolved because Sparks \\TQS ~ on hand at the April Board meeting to push for approval of the ~ ~ Opere.ting Principles. ~ €9) @ Were approved. After a few minor amendment s, the Principles (CRWCD, April 21, 1959, Page 3) "'€J ~ ~ The Principles approved allocated "3,000 acre-feet annually, to the ext ent that it is available in excess Ofll Arkansas Valley diversions and Ruedi storage lito be delivered to the Twin Lek es Reservoir and Canal Company in exchange for equivalent releases from the headw8,ters of the Roaring Fork River which would otherwise be diverted through such Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company collection and diversion system. II (CRWCD, April 21, 1959, Appendix D, Page 5) Also, "11. An appropriate written contract may be made whereby Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co. shall refrain from diverting water whenever the natural flow of the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries shall be only sufficient to maintain a flow equal to or less than that requir.ed to maintain the reoommended average flowS in the Roaring Fork River immedia.tely above it s confluence with Difficult Creek in a quantity proportionate to the ~ respective natural flo'ltJ' of the Roaring Fork River. The recommended average flows above mentioned are flows in quantities equal to those recommended as a minimum __lmmediately above its confluence wi th ·Difficul t Creek according to the ••• schedul e submi tt ed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Game and Fish Commission." (Ibid., Page 6) I Aspen II ~ • ~ The Page 61 obllgatlon to supply the mlnlmum stream flow as set forth" ln the table lncluded ln the Prlnclples lion the Roarlng Fork Rlver shall, to the extent of ),000 acre-feet annually, be a project obllgatlon to be supplled from any waters dlverted from the south trlbutarles of Hunter Creek, Llme Creek, Last Chance Creek or any of them. liThe Twln Lakes Reservolr and Canal Co. shall not be requlred to refraln from divertlng water under lts exlstlng decrees from the Roarlng Fork River except to the extent that a like quantity of replacement water ls furnished to sald company wlthout charge therefor.through and by means of project diverslons. "If by reason of storage ca.paclty ln the Ruedl Reservolr, lor any reservolr constructed ln addltlon thereto, the Twln Lakes Reservolr B.nd Canal Co. derlves addltlonal water or other beneflts or advantages it would not have realized had thls project not been constructed, then nothing herein contained shall prevent the project from maklng appropriate charges for such water or other beneflts or a.dvantages. A portlon of the charges thus made shall be used to B.ssist in the repayment of the construction, operatlon, and maintenance costs of the Ashcroft Reservolr, or any reservolr constructed in lieu thereof, as may be determined by the Secrete.ry of the Interior. II (Ibid., Page 7) It waS paragraph 2 that formB.lly killed the Aspen reservolr, but raised the possibllity of smaller reservoirs elsewhere on the Roaring Fork dralnage. liThe Ruedi Reservolr shall be constructed and maintained on the Fryingpan River above the town of Basalt with an active capaclty @l ~ Page 62 Aspen ® ,~--~~~~-----of not less than 100,000 acre-feet. In addition thereto and in ~ ~ order to offset adverse stream flow conditions on the Roaring Fork @ I River above the town of Aspen which eight occur as a result of the O@ Reservoir on Castle Creek, or some reservoir in lieu thereof, shall R @l R ~ @ "@ G3 ~ ~ project enla,rgement of the Twin Lakes Reservoir, the Ashcroft be construct ed on the Roaring F,o~k drainage above Aspen to a capacity of approximately 5,000 acre-feet; providing, however, that such reservoir shall be constructed only if the Secretary of Interior ~ after a,ppropriate study shall determine that its benefits exceed i the costs as provided by la.w. II ~ ~ (Ibid., Page 2) The Executive Committee and the Policy and Review Committee met jointlY a,t the end of April to consider the Fryingpan-Arkansas Operating Principles following recent changes by Colorado Water Board Director Felix Spar-ks. Smith "stated that Mr. Sparks had issued a new draft of April 27th, 1959, that contained changes from the April 17th draft over and above those approved by the Board of Directors for The Colorado River Water Cons erva,tion District on April 21st. He reported that Mr. Sparks had informed him that these changes had been made to comply with requests from Congressman Aspinall and official s of the Bur eau of Reclam tion. Mr. Smith ••• passed out a transcript of a telephone conversation he had had with Congress_ man Aspinall, which, in the main, corroborated the changes made in the April ~7th version of the Operating Principles. ••• Mr. Jones moved that in section 1, sub-section (h), that the wora.:s 'Roaring Fork BaSin upstream from the town of Aspen' be @ i'----------' Aspen ~ substituted for 'western Colorado.' ~ motion was voted upon and passed unanimously." 1959, Page Page 63j Upon second by Mr. Horn, the (CRWCDEC, April 30, 2) The e.mended section then read: IIIAshcroft Reservoir' means not anly the reservoir contemplated for construction on Ca.stl·e Creek, a tributary of the Roaring Fork River, but also, unless the context requires otherwise, any other reservoir that may be constructed in the Roaring Fork basin above the town of Aspen in lieu of that reservoir. II (CR\'ICDEC, April 30, 1959, Page 2) Section 2, immediately following, said: liThe Ruedi Reservoi shall be constructed B,nd maintained :~m the Fryingpan River above the town of Basalt with en active capacity of not less than 100,000 acre-feet. In addition thereto and in order to offset adverse strea flow cond1tions on the Roaring Fork River above the town of Aspen which might occur as a result of the project enlargement of the Twin Lakes Reservoir, the Ashcroft Reservoir on Castle Creek, or Bome reservoir in lieu thereof, shall be COffi tructed on the Roaring Fork drainage above Aspen to a capacity of approximatelY 5,000 acrefeet. Providing, hgwever, that the Ashcroft Reservoir shall be constructed only if the Secretary of the Interior after appropriate study shell determine that its benefits exceed the coets as provided by laW, with subsequent authorization by the Congress of the United States and approval by the President." (Ibid.) At the August Executive Committee meeting, Mr. Smith IIreported that the staff had completed filings for the Ashcroft and Savery-Pot Hook Pr ojects •• ,," (CRWCDEC, Aug. 3, 1959, Page 3) At the January Board meeting, "Mr~ Gerbaz .~!nquired if the @) 5 A~~ P~e~1 Bureau of Reclamatlon had made any report on the feaslbl1lty of the ,~------------------~ ~ ~ Ashcroft Reservolr. Mr. Smlth replled that other than for the pre- 11mlnary geologlcal fleld examlnation made durlng the settlement negotlatlons no plannlng work had been performed at the Ashcroft Reservolr, except for fl1lng surv:eys made by the Colorado Rlv.er We.ter Conserve.tlon Dlstrlct. He stated that, al though the Bureau geologlst had rejeoted the Tagger.t Lake sl te on the Roarlng Fork abov Aspen because of suspected faulty foundation condltlons, he was of the opinion that storage at thls sl te would be much more valuable to the Aspen area than storage at Ashcroft, and that some drilling exploration should be performed at the Taggert Lake slte before it was abandoned. Mr. Gerbaz agr.lSed that the Aspen communl ty would much rather have a reservoir at the Taggert Lake slte than at the Ashcroft slte. Mr. Smlth stated that during the FrYingpan-Arkansas- Basalt Project negotlations Director Sparks of the Colorado Water Conservation Board had stated that, lf necessary, the State Water Board would supply the funds necessary to perform drl11lng and surveY work to determine if the Taggert Lake reservolr slte was adequate. In the disoussion that followed the SeoretarY_Engineer was dlreoted to disouss further exploration of the Taggert Lake slte with Direotor SparkS and to report baok to the Exeoutive Commlttee end the Board. II (CRWCD, Jan. 11, 1960, Pages 5.. 6) Smi th reported at the Aprl1 board meetlng, III have disoussed with Direotor Sparks of the Colorado Water Conservation Board the possibillty of that Board paying for the drl11ing of at least one exploration hole at the proposed Taggert Lake damsite to deter_ mlne if the foundation conditions there are not more favorable than @ IS=> r Aspen ~ ~ Page 65 '--w-a-s-e-s-t-i-m-e.-t-e-d-b-y-th-e-B-u-r-e-a-u-o-f-R-e-c-l-a-m-a-t-i-o-n-g-e-ol-og-i-st-s-w-h-e-n-m-a-k-i-n-g-----, the field investigations of the site during the Basalt-Fryingpan- ~ I Arkans9,s Project negotiations in 1958. Mr. Sparks expressed the ~ opinion that his budget for fiscal year 1961, beginning July 1st, 19 0, ~ ~ would be sufficiently flexible to allow the State Board to finance ~ €§) @ such exploration work and that he felt they would approve this work. <=@ ~ ~ With your continued permission, I intend to pursue this matter and to attempt to get the exploration program performed this summer.1I (CRWCD, April 19, 1960, Appendix C, Page 4) At the May Executive Committee meeting, Smith "reported that he had been working with Director Sparks on plans for foundatio exploration at the Taggert Reservoir site on the Roe.ring Fork River above Aspen as an alternative to the Ashcroft site mentioned in the Operating Principles. He stated that D1rector Sparks was prepared to finance the drilling program 1mmediately following the beginning of fiscal 1961." (CRWCDEC, May 17, 1960, Page J) At the July meeting, Smith reported, lIyou will recall that when we were negotiat1ng for the rev1sed Operat1ng Pr1nc1ples for th Fry1ngpan_Arkansas Project, geolog1sts and eng1neers for the Bureau of Reclamat10n, working through the State Water Board, looked at several alternative reservo1r s1tes in the Aspen area, includ1ng the ~ ~ Taggert Lake and Ashcroft sltes. As a result of thls inspection the ~ Taggert Lake slte WaS rejected for geological reasons. I never have 01§ §g agreed wlth the analysls made by the Bureau geologists and, there_ fore, requested D1rector Sparks of the Oolorado Water Conservatlon Board to prov1de the funds necessary to drill at least one exploratlon hole at the Taggert Lake slte to prove or disprove the analysl tL-----@J ~ on Wh1ch the re.1ect10n was based. ~ funds from the 1961 water board budget. ~ ~ Aspen Page 66 I Mr. Sparks agreed to provide thes "Pr10r to negotiat1ng for b1ds to drill th1S hole I 1nter- ~ viewed Mr. Jennings of the Bureau of Reolamation in Grand Junction a d ~ invited him and his geologist, Mr. Jay Olson, to visit the eite with ~ ~ @:9) @ me in order that the exploration program might have the advantage "@ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ <@) ~ It @t) ~ of any ideas they had on the matter. Upon field examination, both Mr. Jennings and Mr. Olson felt that the site had good possibilities and should be further explored. They will contact the Bureau Geolb- gist from Region 7 in order that they may review his reasons for rejeoting the site before they make recommendations on what found_ ation exploration ehoUld be conducted. As soon as their recommend_ ations are made I will make every attempt to get the drilling progra underway thiS summer or early this fall. It (CRWCD, July 19, 1960, Appendix A, Pages 18.9) Smith reported in October, uIn my last report I ••• stated I would make every attempt to get a drilling program for foundation exploration at the Taggert Lake Reservoir site on the Roaring Fork proper, an alternative to the Ashcroft s1te, as provided for in the Operating Principles for the Fryingpan_Arkansas ProJeot, underway by not later than th1s fall. Following my report to you I made inquiry around Aspen of their interest in substitut1ng Taggert Lake for the Ashcroft site without elioiting any enthusiasm from those interviewed. Furthermore, I reoontaoted Mr. James H. Smith, Jr., owner of the Taggert Lake site, for confirmation of verbal approval given for permiseion to drill the site. Mr. Sm1th informed me that if the people of western Colorado preferred to build the compensator storage at the Taggert Lake site rather than at Ashoroft he was @ [S:::> t'-------- Page 67 iAspen ~ agreeable, but that he would like an early decision since he had ~ plans to improve the site himself as a recreational property. ~ view of these conditions, and since the geologists for the Bureau of ij Reclamation had, on field examination, approved the Ashoroft site ~ but had rejected the Taggert Lake Site, I have not presented a plan In ~ I'rl I'rl €9) ~ ~ ~ ~ of explors,tion to Mr. Sparks. You will recall that the state Water Board agreed to provide the" funds required for the drill worko II (ORWCD, Oct. 18, 1960, Appendix B, Page 3) In the meeting, "Following the reading of the report, Mr. 1@ Delaney inquired if the Secretary.Engineer had any suggestions for ~ implementing the investigations for the Ashoroft or substitute reservoir as a part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Projeot. The Secre- tary_Engineer commented that Since Mr. Jennlngs of the Bureau of Reolamation waS present that hiS advloe on the matter would be most pertinent. "Mr. Jennings stated that he had always fel t that the emphaSiS, insofar as western Colorado was ooncerned, had been placed on the Ruedi Reservoir, and that the Ashoroft or a substitute reservoir would be 1nvestigated in the future as time and plann1ng funds would allow. He stated that, in hiS opln1on, a study of the Ashcroft Reservoir could be incorporated lnto the reoonnaissanoe study of the Cattle Creek~Sopris area, which study would be perform- ed 1n the near future by the Bureau of Reolam tion Wi th sp eoial fund provided by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. II (CRWeD, Oot. 18, 1960, Page 2) State Water Board Director Larry Sparks was on hand at a speoial Board meeting in December. He handed out sheets containin tL------@ iAspen Page 68 ~ proposed amendments to Sections 2 and) of the Operating Principles ~ for the Fryingpan_Arkansas Project as approved by this Board and ~ adopted by the State of Colorado April )0, 1959, and amended Deoem- ~ ber )0, 1959. .g;, ~ ~ ~ @:9! @ The key ohange as regards this chapter was in Section 2 with the addition of the words: "and, Providing further, that no <'@ ~ ~ ~ part of the construction, operation or maintenance of said Ashoroft Reservoir shall be chargeable to the Fryingpan_Arkansas ProJect." (CRWCD, Dec. 6, 1960, Appendix B, Page 1) i Principles passed the Board without dissenting vote. ~ 6, 1960, Pages 8-9) ~ ce It ~ ~ The motion to accept the amendment to the Operating (CRWCD; ~eo. Smith, at the July 1962 meeting of the Board, suggested the adoption of a resolution, tlsomewhat as follows: IIWhereas, in negotiations between the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, relative to agreement on a stipulative decree for water rights and operating Principle for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, it was agreed that the lnvesti~ gation of uses of water to be store.d in the Ruedi Reservoir of the Fryingpan_Arkansas Project under the Basalt Project, and of the Ashcroft Reservoir or a substitute therefo~li' as provlded ln said Operating Principles, would be undertaken immedlately following the authorization of sald Frylngpan-Arkaneas Pro ject ••• II 17, 1962, Appendix A, Page 7) The resolution proposed asked Congressman Aspinall to submlt and sponsor lias a part of the first preconstruction and con- § IS:=> t'------- Page 69 ~ struotion appropriations for the FrYingpan-Arkansas Projeot a provi_ ~ sion for the inolusion of suffioient funds in said appropriation to ~ ~ ~ f finafntoRe detall ed invesstblgattitiOntS °th rtheef Brasa~t p(rIboiJdeot'paangdesth7eaA)Shcro eservo i r or a u s u e eo... ., - ~ In the meeting, IIMr. Gerbaz inquired, with respeot to the ~ ~ @J ~ resolution on investigation funds for the Basalt Projeot and the ~ Ashcroft Reservoir, as oontained in the Seoretary-Engineer's report, ~ if the Ashoroft Reservoir is still being oonsidered. ~ plained that the authorization bill, as passed by the House of Repre_ cI sentatives and as ourrently being oonsidered by the Senate, direoted 1 Mr. Smith ex- the Secretary of the Interior to make feasibility investigations of the Basalt Projeot and the Ashoroft Reservoir. He noted"that that the Operating Principles provided for the Ashoroft Reservoir, or a substitute therefor~ and that, in his opinion, the Taggert Lake Site on the Roaring Fork River above Aspen should not be ruled out unless its questioned foundation adequaoy was demonstrated by drilling exploration. II Following disoussion of the Basalt and West Divide Projeots II Mr. Gerbaz moved the adoption of the resolution set forth Seoretary_Engineer's report. was voted II in II the Upon seoond by Mr. Williams, the motion upon and passed unanimouslY." (eRWeD, JulY 17, 1962, Pages )...4) Smith reported at the Ootober meeting that liOn October 9th, I received a letter from Jim Smith of Aepen, transmitting a olipping from the September 2ath issue of the Aspen Times, under the heading ''l'he Devl1!.s Advocate,' and the name of KNeB Moore. The clipping states that a highly reliable souroe reveals that an unfavorable geo- @ i-------- IAspen Page 70 ~ logical report on the Ruedi Reservoir is in Washington, disclosing ~ that ~ site. ~ 8. large salt deposit which would leach out underlies the dam The article suggests that Aspen reqaest the Bureau of Recle- ~ mation to relocate the west slope compensating storage in five poten- ~ tial reservoir sites on the Roaring Fork and its tributaries in the €.9) ~ vicinity of Aspen. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @ ~ I wrote Jlm a rather lengthy letter explaining why I thought the alternative storage suggested was not only unnecessary B.nd impract ical, but also that it was being propo sed much too late. I explained to him that the Ruedi' Reservoir was so located tha it would make possible a feasible gravity delivery of water to many thousands of acres of lands in the vicinity of Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Spr1ngs that had no other source of gravity water supply I also assured him that the Bureau of Reclamat10n would 1nvestigate the Rued1 Dam site thoroughlY to determine its competence before pro- o ~ E ceed1ng with construction. II (CRWCD, Oct. 16, 1962, Appendix B, Page 5) The highly reliable source c1ted in the above mentioned column apparentlY waS a Jim Dodge, reportedly a geologist, who predicted that the dam would collapse if built. Smi th report ed at the January 1963 meeting that II at the last meet1ng of the State Water Board, Jim Knights, reporting for Region 7, stated that all of the drilling at the Ruedi site so far has been in the reservoir basin. They haven't started drilling on the damsite, but they have drilled up in the a.rea \\There the gypsum outcrops in the reservoir basin. Knights reported that they hadn't encountered any salt at all, although they have drilled holes as de~p as 500 feet. Of course, they make water tests in these holes @ i'------~ Aspen Page 71 ~ to determine the water holding ability of the reservoir foundation. ~ He further etated their exploration work to date has produced results ~ i :::ee::::::R::n:a:~:fW::e~:::l:::: ::a::: :::~:::·:e::::lt::a::te ~ ~ ~ iW ~ ~ ~ ~ ';§ J ago. II (CR\vCD, Ja,n. 1.5, 1963, Appendix C, Page 13) At the October meeting there waS !Ian extended discussion I 0 proposals by the Norrie Colony '''i th respect to al terna,ti ve replace_ ment and compensatory stora,ge. for the Fryingpan_Arkansas Pro ject and for location of project access roads in western ColoradQ, all of which had been found unacceptable by Reclamation officials in charge of planning and development for this project. Also discussed at length was the pOSSibility of improving late season flow in the Roaring Fork at the mouth of Difficult Creek by cessation of diver_ sions through the Twin Lakes Tunnel, as a result of and exchange for water diverted by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project from the South Fork of Hunter Creek. Mr. Robert Delaney expressed the opinion that such exchange WaS impractical since during low flow periodS on the Roaring Fork, Twin Lake diverSions were normally shut down to satisfy senior rights in western COlorado." (CRWCD, Oct. 1.5, 1963, Page 3) There waS no further discussion of a reservoir in the Aspe area. until 1966 when Smith, at the January meeting, reported "during the quarter, after discussions with Messrs. Delaney and Ba,lcomb, I initiated a study for a multiple purpose project on the Roaring Fork near Aspen, including a reservoir on Snowmass Creek. Studies of this potential development are encouraging and I recommend that you authorize me to file a map F.I.nd statement for water rights for this pro ject. II (CRWCD, Jan. 18, 1966, Appendix B, Page 4) @ (S:o ~ Aspen Page 72 It~------------------------------------~ In the meetlng, Robert Delaney stated that he Wo Uld 11ke ~ ~ II to comment brlefly on a matter contalned ln the Secretary-Engineer's e e :::::: :::r::n:l:t:::::o:: ::: :::~::l:::k ;n:r::::::a:: :::er:e .g;, 0 ~ ~ ~ @:8) ~ ~ ~ ~ slons from the headws.ters of the Roarlng Fork and lts trlbutarles as once advanced as a part of the Gunnlson-ArkanSas Project study stl1l constltutes a threat. He noted that thlS threat could also result Wlth posslble extenslon of the collectlon system of the Twln Lakes development. He said that ln hls oplnlon, local lnterests <§l J would support the development proposed by the Secretary-Engineer slnce thls development wo uld offer excellent recrea.tional posslbl11 ties a.nd would perhaps be attractl ve to the Game and Fish people. He noted that the storage would certainly be valuable for securing eddi tional municipal and industria.l water for the oil she.le industry a.nd other purposes. He then stated that from these standpOints that he would 11ke to concur wlth Mr. Smlth's recommendatlons that the Distrlct staff be authorized to make the recommended fl1lngs and claims and to carry them to s.djudlcation at an appropria.te tlme. 1I (CRWCD, Jan. 18, 1966, Page 4) Later, Gerbaz "moved that the Secretary_Englneer be auth.orized and dlrected to prepare and flle a map and statement for the potential Roarlng Fork-Snowmass development s.nd that Counsel be authorized and directed to proceed with claiming water rights for the development in the district court. II motion carr1ed. Seconded by Williams, the (Ibid.), In Apr1l, Smith reported, "A map and statement 1n four she eteewas completed during the quarter for the Snowmass Pro ject. It § I}::> I 00 ~ ~. ~ ~ Page 73 Aspen r-----------------------------------~------------------------------_, was accepted for filing by the state Engineer's office April 13th, ~ but as yet has not been assigned a filing number. ~ vol ves forebay storage and diversion struct ure on the Roaring Fork ~ This project in- ~ ~ Irl § Ri ver between Aspen and the mouth of Snowmass Creek, a major stora.ge ll@ R @ @ <=@ reservoir on the lower reaches of Snowmass Creek and two potential ~ In the latter ma.tter, Robert Dela.ney reported the first hydroelectric plants. II @ ~ (CRWCD, April 19'; 1966, Appendix B, Page 1) signs of tro uble a.t B. July meeting of the Executi ve Committe e. "He noted considerlible B.cti vity involving water \',19.S under way in the Aspen B.rea, one of which was the formation of a sanita.tio district. In a proposed plan for the sanitation district, the sew_ age trea.tment plant wo uld be locB.ted in the basin of the upper reser voir of the Snowmass Project. He stated that the sanitation distric had been informed of the District's projected use of the land area involved. He then proposed that the District obtain options and ee.sements on the land to be occupied by the upper reservoir and that he thought such options and easements could be acquired without cost to the District. He noted that in this manner, the District could insure compatible use of the land. II Mr. Gerbaz moved that the sta.ff be authorl zed to acquire right-of-way options for the SnowmasS Project along the lines out~ lined by Mr. Delaney. II Seconded by Williams, the motion carr ied. (CRWCDEC, July 7, 1966, Page 4) The Twin Lakes Irrigation diversion from the headwa.t ere *~ of the Roaring Fork waS one of the earlier transmountain diverSions ~. and wa.S completed before the River District wa.s formed. ~ References §§l ~o ~ to it in the River District minutes are comparatively rare, but one f @ iit~--------------------------------------~ ~ ~ Aspen Pa,ge 74 these discussions occurred in July 1966 and may have been the start of a controversy that went to the Colorado Supreme Court. The latte ~ occurred after pa.Ssage of the "Sunshlne Act" and subsequent prunlng ~ of the mlnut es and thus becomes somewhe.t obsc urea ~ ~ Sml th reported at the JUlY 1966 meetl ng, lion June 24th, ~ @:9l @ Ci§) ~ ~ ~ ';§5 J '1eJ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mr. Balcomb and I lnspected the collectlon Emd dl verslon system of the Twln Lakes Irrlgatlon Company, located ln W. D. 38 on the head of the Roa.ring Fork. We did thls beca.use notice had been given that the Twin Lakes Company expected to make a showing of dlligence in the distrlct court beginning on June 28th. The last tlme I had been over the system was aome 12 or 14 years ago and I found a vast lmprovement had been ma.de ln the New York Gulch Unl t of the sy stem. Th a lmprovement waS prima,rlly the repla,cement of open ditch ln rocky terraln wlth burled plpe condult. During the dl1lgence hearlng, I understand from Mr. Balcomb, the Twin Lakes wltnesses stated that th, compa.ny would line ita tunnel'/.through the Continental Divide tn the nea.r future, \llhich Will allow them to increase thelr maxlmum di version under exlstlng decrees by approximatelY 125 second feet. They also sta.ted the company wa,S making surveys and plans to extend its collection system frm-IIJ the West Branch of New York Gulch Collection By stem to Dlffi cult and Castle Creeks and, thereby, expand its water rlghts in the Roa.ring Fork Basin. You may recall that wi th your a.uthorizB.tion, I mapped the Ashcroft Re servoir 8i te on Castle Cre ek several ye are ago and submitted a filing on same to the Stat e Engineer. The Operating Principles for the Fryingpan... Arkansa.s Pro ject I a.s included in the authorization legislation for the Fryingpan-Arkan .S~·~'·h ~ro ject, includes a provision that the Se cretary of the Interior @ ~~------------~ Aspen Page 7S ~ shall expedi tiously investigate the fee,sibility of the Ashcroft Res- ~ ervoir. This investige.tion he,s not been made nor programmed by the Bureau. In my opinion, this Board should now inSist that such in- Smi th reported in Janua,ry 1967 tha.t during the preceding quarter, he had "met on two occasions with the '):j)oard and stockholders of the Salvation Ditch Company concerning needed work on that ditch. The ditch diverts from the Roaring Fork River at a poin a short distance upstream from Aspen. Considerable construction work will be required to protect its full decree to 96.5 second_feet of direct floW water. I ha.ve attempted to convince thiS mutual ditch compa,ny for ma.ny years that unless they make ,the ne eded improvements the chances of retaining the right to divert the full amount of the decree becomes evermore questionable. Further meeting are planned to consider financing the required work with a Sma.ll Project Loan through the Bureau of Reclama.tion." 1967, Appendix B, Page 3) (CRWCD, Jan. 17, @ ~~--------------------------------------~ ~ ~ .gs, ~ In April, Balc6mb report ed I Aspen .pe~simieticellY, Page 81 .·11 as you will no doubt remember, co unsel waS instructed to B.ppea.l the decision of Judge Darrow, finding tha.t the TloJin La.kes Reservoir and Canal people ~ he.d been diligent in the prosecution of the completion of their con- ~ ditional decree for water from the Roaring Fork River and its tribu- H ~ €e) @ taries. We are purf?uing such an a.ppeal, a.nd have filed the District e "@ ~ ~ ~ ~ I opening brief. The predilection our Supreme Court exhibits for eastern Slope interests, however, argues strongly that "re will lose the case. !I Yo u will also remember the litigation betwe en the Dist_ rict and the Aspen Metropolitan Sewer District over the loca.tion of a part of Snowmass project facilities. Motions in the litigation lITere recently a.rgued in the District Court, without announced result (CRWOD, April 18, 1967, Appendix 0, Pa.g e 1) In JulY, Balcomb reported, "The briefs in the TWin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company case'~on the upper Roaring Fork Ri ver have been completed and fl1ed and the case is awaiting assignment of time for oral argument. We do not anticlpate argument and declsion to occur for many monthe, and oertainly not Withln the balance of this year. II (CRWCD, July 18, 1967, Appendlx 0, Page 1) Further on, Balcomb reported "In Water Distri ct No. 38, the Distriot's statements of olaim for the Snowmass Project and the Ashcroft Reservoir are pendlng for proof. Proof may be offered on Aug. 14, 1967, but lt may be advisable to wait for a determination on the condemnatlon sult by the Aspen Sewer District, as well as the possibility of a conflicting claim for the Ashcroft Reservoir. Page 2) /I (Ibid., II C§ ~ ~ Page 82 [ Aspen II----------------------------------~ @§ Balcomb reported ln October, the case lnvolvlng the Metro~ po11tan Sewer Dlstrlct at Aspen over the respeot1ve r1ghts of thls ~ ~ ~ District and the sewer d1str1ct to use the area of the proposed ~ Paepcke Reservo1r for a reserv01r so far as the Dlstrlct 1s conoernei, C§ I}@ H or for a sel17age ecember an:l "cons1dered the proposed contraot between our District and the Aspen Metropol1tan Sanitation District. The form of agreement had been subm1tted to all the members of the Board of Directors under letter of November 18, 1968. After discuss1on, Mr. Gerbaz moved, seconded by Mr. W1ll1ams, that the Exe~cut1 ve Committee express approval of the cont raot ,\11 th 1I The the full Board to act on th19 matter at its January meet1ng. motion carried un8,nimous1Y~ (CRWCDEC, Dec. 12, 1968, Page 1) F1scher reported in January 1969, "There waS a motion pass_ ed at the October 15, 1968 meet1ng that counsel and secretary_e'ng1n_ eer should negotiate for a solut1on of th1s p~blem tives of the Aspen Metropol1tan Sanitat10n District. held in October and November. sent to Board members. With representaMeetings were A form of contract waS agreed upon and Th1s item was discussed by Board members who attended the Colorado River Water Users ASSOCiation meeting at Las Vegas, Nevada on December 12, 1969. Mr. President, we Will need a motion on thiS matter. "Also assoc1ated w1th th1s same matter, there waS a mot1on at the October 15, 1968 meet1ng d1rect1ng that a report ~ m on lowering the dam he ight on the Paepcke Forebey. be prepared That report, o~ ~ o§ dated January 9, 1969, has been sent to each Board member; due to ~ staff illness, the map to accompany that report waS prepared later and 1S 1ncluded in Board Members' folders. "The C1ty Manager of Aspen has expressed an 1nterest 1n discuss1ng the possib111ty of working With th1s Distr1ct on the pro_ @ ~ Page 88 I Aspen ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ I ~-----------------------------------------------------------------. poeed Ashcroft Reserv01r on Castle Creek as a potent1al source of future water for the City and 1ts surrounding area. Aspen also has c&9 a claim for a reserv01r on Castle Creek, which is jun10r to the ~ District'e. Ashcroft Reserv01r~" ~ Page 1) ~ ~ @:?) @ (CRWCD, Jan. 21,1969, Appendix C, In the meeting, Balcomb read the resolution he had prepare 'l8J ~ ~ approving the proposed agreement between the Colorado River Water Conserva.tion Di stri ct and the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation Distriot. Wl111ams.·fJ!ioved adoption and Lorig seoonded. The motion oarried. Fischer reported in April that liThe Board of Directors of the AspenSahlta.tion Dl,triot sent this Distriot a copy of a resolution dated FeBruary 10, seeking regional plann1ng and coordination. They would like thiS Board to oons1der the question. Copies of the Aspen Sanitation Distriot's memorial were sent to the Board members in February." (CRWCD, April 17, 1969, Append1x B, Page 4) The m1nutes record only tha.t 1n the meeting there waS "a discussion of the posS1bility of cooperating With the City of Aspen on development of additional munioipa.l and 1ndustrial water supplies for Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. /I (CRWCD, April 17, 1969, Page 6) Fi scher reported 1n July that liOn May 12th Co unsel and I met Wi th Oi ty of Aspen and Bureau of Recls.mation personnel for pre_ liminary discuss10n of future municipal-industrial water supp11 e s for the Roaring Fork VS·lley. I met with them again on May 2)rd. The Bureau of Reclamation t'11ll include Roaring Fork Valley M&I water supplies and requirements aO part of the Basal t Pro ject at udy. " ( CRWCD, July 24, 1969" -Appendl1x ~.B ,···Page 2) @ ~ • I Aspen ~ ~ ~ Page 89 .----------F~i-s-c~h~e-r--r-e-p-o-r~t-e~d~a~t~t~h-e~J~a-n-u-ar-y~l~~-m-e-e~t~i-n-g~t~~'~--=-o-v-~ ember 6, 1969, Counsel and I met with representatives of the League of Women Voters from Aspen and discussed the functions of the Distrio and its relationship in water resources development and conservation generally ••. !I: '(C~WCD, January 20,1970, Appendix-;-lU, Page 6) Robins reported at the JulY meeting that "We have oontlnu our diSCUSSions With the Basalt Water Conservanoy Distriot and other local interests on the need for development of additional munioipal and domestio water in the project area between Aspen and Carbondale. This area antioipates continued growth With increasing demands for municipal and domestio water as well as sewage disposal and pollutio control. We Will oontinue to work olosely With local interests on these matters with the idea of improving environmental and living conditions for the people in thiS area. "Geological investigations are underway on the potential damsite on Castle Oreek near the old Ashcroft Site. Storage in this area is needed as a means of developing the additional municipal and domestiC water for Aspen and the upper portion of the project area. We Will be calling for bids for drilling this dam Site by contract in the near future. Investigations on the Basalt Project are on schedule and no particular problems have yet been enco unte,r~d. " (CRWCD, July 21, 1970, AppendiX G, Page 6) Fischer reported in October that IIMunicipal and industrial water supplies for Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley may be included ~ in the Basalt Project. As part of the potential M&I supply, the Bures.u of Reclamation has been taking cores at Aspen' E proposed Castle Creek Reservoir eite. October 5th I visited the site of the coring work With a Bureau of Reclamation geologist. The first cores <§ ~ IAspen Page 90 I~,-----------------------------------------------------------------~ lndl cate that valley al uvl urn 18 app r oxlmat ely 142 feet deep and the ~ ~ dam slte ls ln a fault zone. 1I I Page 3). ~ Roblns reported ln January 1971 regardlng the Basalt Pro- Irl ~ Irl @ @l ''is ~ ~ (CRWCD, Oct. 20, 1970, Appendlx C, ject that three drl11 holes had been completed at the Castle Creek dam slte. "Drl111ng showlng deep pervlous mater1als ln stream valle and fractured rock on the rlght abutment. Left abutment not drl1led. He sald the water supply and plan formulatlon studles were contlnuln and the report was scheduled for complet10n ln FY 1972. (CRWCD, Jan. 19, 1971, Appendlx G, Page 4) J.F. Rlnckel reported for the Bureau in Aprl1 that 'Some revlslons have been made ln the plan for the Basalt Project. S1nce foundat1on exploration at the Castle Creek damslte lndlcated that storage at the slte would be qulte costly, we have been 1nve stigati the alternative sources of water supply for the clty of Aspen and surroundlng areas. These alternatl ve sources include the Roaring Fork and lts tribute.rles ln the Aspen area as well as a pipe and pumping system from Ruedi Reservoir. We are also further studYlng posslble locatlons for the plpeline from Ruedl Reservoir along the FrYlngpan River. Our goal ls to estab11sh the most economlcal loca- tlon that wl11 not unduly lnterfere With aesthetlcs and the envlronmente II (CRWCD, Apr1l 22, 1971, App e ndlx G, Page 3) IIBalcomb reported ln January 1972 that II In regard to the TWin Lakes matter, we,. have prepared and flled a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado." (CRWCD, Jan. 20, 1972, Appendix 0, Page 1) In April, Balcomb reported, IIIn the TWin Lakes case, our @ ~ 00 Aspen ~ Page 91 ~~,~--------~~------------------------~------~--~--~----------~ ~ brief has been filed with the Colorado Supreme Court and we are I await1ng the answer br1ef of Holland & Hart on behalf of TWin Lakes.' (CRWCD, April 18, 1972, Appendix D, Page 2) Baloomb reported on two oourt oases 1n July 1973. "Tw1n lakes has f11ed an app11cat1on to change the use of 1ts Western Slope water from 1rr1gat1on to 1rr1gat1on, domest10, oommero1al, 1ndustr1al, mun101pal and all other beneficial purposes, and the plaoe' of' use from Cro''lley County to Aurora, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo West Meropolitan Distriot. Statement of oppos- ition is 1n the pro.cIBss of preparation, but there seems to be little oan be done about the requests." And, liThe GunnisorroArkansas Projeot, as planned by the Bureau of Reclamation, 1noluded the waters of the Roaring Crystal R1vers. Forl~ and Bunger and Oxley have f11ed ola1ms on those streams 1n Div. 5, and a statement of opposition is 1n preparation for filing. " (CRWCD, July 17, 19"3, Counsell s report J Page 2) Fisoher l s report 1n October oonta1ns a, curious item that is unaocompan1ed by any add1t1onal mention or explanation. "Enolosed 1n Direotors I folders 1s a paoket of correspondenoe and a resolut1on by the P1tkin County Comm1ssioners direoted towards stopp1ng construotion on the Fryingpan-Arkansas Projeot. Discussion may be in order." (CRWCD, Oct. 18, 1973, Seoretary- Engineerls report, Page 5) Baloomb reported in January 1974 that in Water Division 5, "An init1al pretrial of Bungerls, et. al., olaims on the Roaring Fork-Crystal Rivers was held before Judge Stewart on Deo. 21, 1973. At Judge Stewartls suggestion (that) the olaims might be defeotive, oounsel for Mr. Bunger asked for 60 days to amend, with 30 days @ ij I Aspen Page 92 thereafter to object, and with a briefing schedule set up on purely .~----------------------------~ ~ ~ legal questions. The oase is progressing satisfactorily. II (CRWCD, Counsells report, Page 3) Balcomb reported in May that IITrial of the applioation to change the use of the Twin Lakes water divers10ns from irr1gat1on to mun1cipal uses 1n Pueblo, etc., is scheduled for June 17 and 18, 1974, at Glenwood Spr1ngs. The attorney for the Company will meet with me on Monday, May 6, 1974, to discuss conditions to be imposed in the change, if allowed. II (CRWCD, May 3, 1974, Counsel's report, Page 2) And, in the Bunger-Oxley matter in DiVision 5, I~Amended applications for determ1nat1on of water rights, no better than the first applications, have been filed. No pre-trial oonference is currently scheduled. II (Ibid., Page 2) The Board, at a special meeting in Granby later'_in May, passed a motion IIDireoting Counsel to sign a stipulation ,.,i th the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company transversion of '''later by Twin Lakes with Counsel further directed to include language that would limi t the taking of the water in prior'1!ty. II Page 2) (CRWCD, May 30, 1974, A word or two, at least, apparently was omitted by the original tyPist and there is noth1ng in F1scher's accompany1ng report to 1ndicate what the Board approved. Balcomb reported in July regarding Twin Lakes Reservo1r and Canal Company that "Discussions of counsel 1n this matter have resulted 1n an agreement between T,dn Lakes Reservo1r and Canal Company and the Colorado River Water Conservat1on D1strict wh10h plaoes j an annual average lim1tat1on of 57,000 acre-feet on the quant1ty of water diverted through the Independence Pass Transmounta1n D1vers1on System. II (cmmn, July 16, 1974, Counsell s report, Page 2) @ IS'==> @'i2) IAspen ~ Page 93 It,~----------------------------------~ Baloomb reported in July regarding the olaims of Mills §@ ~ Bunger that "The applioant has moved the court for leave to file ~ seoond 8~ended applioations. ~ ~ "Apparently there has been no other aotivity by Mr. Bunger \;:::::;} ~ \;:::::;) @:9) @ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ As yet no deoision has been reaohed. in Water Division 4." (CRWCD J July 16 J 1974 J Counsel's Report, Page 3) In Ootober, Baloomb reported, "After reporting to you that the Distriot's litigation with Twin Lakes had been settled by plavJ~u~ an annual average limitation of 57,000 aore-feet on their diversion, Twin Lakes amended the ohange applioation to ask for of diversion of its western slope direot flow rights to totally unspeoified points in Divisions 5 and 6. EvidentlYJ the DiVision 6 request 'tfJ'as based on an assumption that lBrt of the water would be pumped from the Colorado River for use on Pioeanoe Creek in the White River drainage. "I have disoussed the laok of deSignating speoifio points of diversion with the attorney for Twin Lakes, and he agrees that he will designate one or more speoifio pOints, antioipating that if todayls guess as to where those points shOUld be is in error, that additional ohange sutt would have to be instituted. I am somewhat a loss as to what to do about this applioation and would assume that all users or prospeotive users, at least the larger ones, would likewise be in something of a quandary. CertalnlYJ if Twin Lakes does not take its water through Tunnel No. 1 and releases it for use on the western slope, the entire Roaring Fork River valley woul benefit, and water with a very senior right would be available for j industrial and munioipal uses on the mainstem. On the other hand, Denver could likewise adopt this same plan as to both Dillon Reser- @ ~ IAspen ~.o= Page 94 @ ~--------------------------------------------------------------~ B voir and Roberts Tunnel and its proposed Eagle-Colorado. This would effeotively put a large part of '''estern Colorado's ,\'Iater usage under the control of Eastern Colorado. On behalf of the District, I have objected to the proposed change on the ground of lack of speoificity for the new points of diversion." (CRWCD, Oct. 15, 1974, Counsel's report, Pages 4-5) Further on, Balcomb noted "Pitkin County and the City of Aspen have advanced an interesting request under last year's statute allowing the Colorado Water Conservation Board to adjudicate minimum stream flows. They have filed olaims in the water court for #5 for fish flows in the Roaring Fork, Hunter Creek and other stre in that immediate vicinity, olaiming the right to oertain quantities of flow with an appropriation and priority date baok in the l880s. They have Joined the Colorado Water Conservation Board in the applicay'ion as an involuntary applicant, and thereby seek to oompel that board to obtain the neoessary minimum stream flow determinations. Claiming a priority date the sarne as the appropriation date is based upon a previously applied aooeptable theory. Persons olaiming the right to use water for purposes other than irrigation originally were not provided with any statu:tory authority'. to adjudioate, and when the statutory authority was given, the oourt ruled that such users were not out off by the entry of a previous deoree in a ,\'1ater distriot. Mr. Williams is very familiar with an outstanding example of domestio and other rights other than irrigation being integrated into a priority, when the District Court for Mesa County entered a master decree in 1941 and renumbered all rights theretofore adjudi- j oated into one master list for \'1ater District 42." (Ibid., Page 6) @ ~ • I ~, ~ Page 94A Aspen ~---------I-n--J-a-n-ua--r-y--1-9-7-5-,-B-a-l-c-o-m-b--r-e-p-o-r-t-e-d-,~II~W-e--ha--v-e--a-g-a-in--e-n-t-e-r-e-d--~ ~ into a stipulation concerning (Twin Lakes) diversions and they have ~ agreed that use of the water on the Western Slope will be included ~ in the quantitative limitations previously agreed to. ~ They selected ~ ~ ~ @E) @ three west slope points of diversion, namely the present Union Oil point of diversion now under construction at Grand Valley, the <'@ ~ River District Kobe Pumping Plant and Exxon's Pumping Pipeline up ~ Roan Creek. It should be observed that if they desire any other points of diversion, formal application for change would have to be made. Uln conneotion with this matter, the attorneys represent the City of Apsen and Pitkin County, et al., filed a brief opposing any change to use on either the east or west slopes, raising proble of sal.inlty and Compaot interpretations oompletely oontrary, so tar as the latter is concerned, to what must be the postion of the District and the State of Colorado. Consequently, the committee appoin ed by Mr. Berthelson to study and make reoommendations oonoerning Colorado's interpretation of the 1922 Compaot, are attempting to advise Judge Stewart by brief amioi that it is unneoessary for him to attempt to pass on such points. II (CRtiCD, Jan. 21, 1975, Counsel' report, Page 3) Baloomb reported in April, III have reoei ved a oopy of the order and deoree entered by Judge Stewart after the trial of W-1869, the case involving the Twin Lakes application to enlarge its collec ion system to refleot the aotual diversions whioh have been made as opposed to the amounts allol'1ed under the old 1941 deoree. Judge Stewart disallowed the olaim in its entirety, and I am advised that Twin Lakes will probably appeal to the Supreme Court. @ ~'---- _ _ _ _- - - J lA§P-:::e-=:.:n'--__--'P::.....:a=g,....e=---..:9:.....4=B=-----' "W-190l, the Twin Lakes case for change of use and alter- ~ ~ nate points of diversion has been on trial in the water court all ~ last week. ~ ~ You w1ll remember the District stipulated with Twin Lake ~ as to quantities which could be d1verted annually and on a 35-year ~ ~ moving average. ~ @ @ <=@ ~ ~ As a consequence of this stipulation, we have not attended the trial. 1I (CR\vCD, April 15, 1975, Counsel's report, Page 2) Under miscellaneous, Balcomb reported "We expect to take Mr. Bunger's deposition in Glenwood Springs on May 3, 1975, in an effort to ascertain precisely what he claims to have personally done on his proposed project in Water Divisions 4 and 5 since the surveys were made by the Bureau of Reclamation. II The Board, at their "Agreeing to terminate Febru~y ri~f-way (Ibid., Page 7) 1977 meeting, approved a motio and flooding easement for the Snolfmass Project in Pi tkin County. U (CRWCD, Feb. 8, 1977, P,age 3) There was no mention of this matter in either Fisoher's or Balcomb's reports. Under the heading IIFryingpan-Arkansas: Hunter Creek," F1soher reported at the August 1977 meeting "The Board has reoeived oopies of Counsel's and engineer Currier's reports. Earlier we sent copies of a letter by Assistant Seoretary of Interior Guy Martin ooncerning 8 alternatives and a mailgram by President Brown. Addi- tional discussion by engineer Currier and Counsel is included as a separ~te agenda item." (CRWCD, Aug. 2, 1977, Secretary-Engineer' report, Page 1) The: Board voted to IItable the matter of the Fryingpan-Ark- j ansas Project and the Hunter Creek and Midway portions of the collection system and Pitkin County's request that the) River District I Aspen Page 95 join Pitk1n County in opposition to the referee's ruling in Case No. W"829-76 in Water Division 5.° (CRWCD. Aug. 2, 1977, Page 3) The Board, at 1ts Ootober meeting, passed a motion: "Agreeing to conditionally assign for a period of not to exoeed 6 years the deorees for the R1ver Distriot's Snowmass Projeot to Aspen and Pitkin County; the oonditions of assignment inoluding the requirement that Aspen and Pitkin County shall be responsible for the work neoessary towards the applioation of the waters of the Snowmass deoree to benefioia1 use, Aspen and Pitkin County to report annually to the River Distriot the work performed and to timely submit the required app1ioations and assooiated proof of di1igenoe to the water oourt having jurisdiotion, that the R1ver Distriot shall retain to itself the right to proteot the deoree in the water oourts and/or otherwise, the deoree shall revert to the River Distriot after the 6-year period, and the River District reserves to itself all of the hydroeleotrio portions and faoilities of the Snowmass Projeot deoree with the River Distriot prov1d1ng to Aspen and Pitkin County the opportunity to part1cipate in the oonstruotion of the hydroeleotr1c faoi11t1es at the River D1striot's option. D (CRW CD, Oot. 18, 1977, Page 3) uThe Board also heard a disoussion by Direotor Soott of the River Distriot's pOSition in Case W-829, Water Division 5 (Fryingp Arkansas Projeot olaims on Hunter Creek) with partioular referenoe to the Board's previous disoussions of whether or not the River r10t should intervene in Case W-829 with the matter having been tabled at the Aug. 2, 1977 Board meeting. No motion was made and , J the matter remained tabled without further aotion by the Board. II (Ibid., Page 4) ",I @ ~ I Aspen ~ Page 96 ~~---------------------------------------------------------------, Balcomb reported at the April 1978 meeting that "In conneo ~ ~ ~ ~€§> ~ ion with prior filings for diligenoe and sinoe the 1969 Aot, for reasons entirely unknown to oounsel or staff, there was omitted from the Distriot's diligenoe applioations a olaim for diligenoe for the ~ Una Power Plant, Paepke Po'tfer Plant and the Azure Power Plant. @:9 @l are attempting to reotify this matter in W-789-76, the ourrent dili- 1 genoe matter. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ We We would like permission of the Board for leave to file with the oourt a request to amend the deorees heretofore enterad in favor of the Distriot regarding diligenoe. Regard1ng ourrent diligenoe, Mr. John U. Carlson of the firm of Holland & Hart has be employed to represent the D1str1ot 1n the trial of th1s matter in Ootober and November. Mr. Carlson has been oonferring with oounsel regarding this matter." (CR''1CD, April 18, 1978, Counsel's report, Pages 3-4) The Board passed a mot10n IIInstruot1ng Counsel to tile with the water oourt a request to amend the respeotive deorees heretofore entered in favor of the Distriot with regard to di11genoe to inolude Una Power Plant, Pabst Power Plant of the Snowmass Projeot and the Azure Power Plant. II (CRWCD, April 18, 19?8, Page 3) Baloomb reported in Ootober that flAtter seven days of trial before the water oourt in Water Division 5, all of the Distriot's testimony was oompleted. Protestants oalled Kenneth Broadhurst and Earl Phipps in an effort to impeaoh oounsel's testimony. It is my view the Distriot put on the best possible oase, and that the withdrawal of our offioe was absolutely neoessary beoause of the neoessity of oounsel's eVidenoe, and the faot it was drawn in issue. Tho j a lot of work had been aooo~lished on speoifio projeots suoh.as Redoliff and Azure, it is also olear that the prinoipal relianoe of @ ~ I Aspen Page 97 iI,~--------------------------------------~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ the Dlstrlot for a dlllgenoe flndlng was on essentlal that a means of demonstrating litigation as a part of dll genoe must be found other than by testlmony of oounsel. "Prior to trlal the oourt oanoelled the deorees for the ~ @ Slnoe thls wlll probably be true for some tlme ln the future, lt ls absolutely ~ €9 ~ltlgatlon. Azure Power Plant, the Una Power Plant and the Snowmass Power Plant C@ ~ ~ on the basis that the 1969 Aot required a dlllgenoe flllng ln 1970, falllng whioh, abandonment was automatl0 •. We have proseouted an appeal of W-44, W-789 and W-789-76 on thls polnt, as well as for the Town of Debeque, and would llke Board approval of these appeals. IINorthern Colorado is likewlse oontestlng the dlllgenoe of the Dlstrlot ln ~144-76, the dlllgenoe prooedure ln Dlvlslon 6. I believe lt ls their lntentlon to agaln draw ln questlon the oredlbility of oounsel with regard to the litigation aotivities of the Dlstriot. It would be my reoommendation that John U. Carlson be employed to oonduot those dlllgenoe prooeedlngs beoause of this problem. Mr. Carlson ls already well aoqualnted wlth the aotivltles of the Dlstrlot and would not require the enormous amount of tlme spent on pretrlal prooedures ln Water Dlvlslon 5, ln preparlng for the ~ ~ J trlal ln Water Dlvlslon 6. 11 (CRWCD, Oot. 31, 1978, Counsel's re- port, Pages 2-3) ~ The Board approved a motlon "Authorlzlng Counsel to prose- ~ o§ ~ cute appeals of the water oourt's abandonment rullng ln W-44, W-789 , ~ and W-789-76 and ln the oase of the Town of DeBeque ln Water Dlvisl0 °rs 5. II (CRiiCD, Oot. 31, 1978, Page 3) The Board also passed \ mo tlon ' s : "Adopting a resolutlon addressing a oontraot, dated Oot. 7, 1978, oonoernlng the Frylngpan-Arkansas Projeot between Colorado I~A_s~p~e_n______P_a~ge 99 Water Conservation Board, Southeast Water Conservanoy Distr10t and Pitkin County. "Aocepting the report of P1tkin County/City of Aspen conoerning the Snowmass Project. II (Ib1d., Page 2) The resolut1on.states "In reoogn1tion of the des1rab111ty of oompromising 11tigation and disputes 1n water matters the agreement of Ootober 7, 1978, betw:een the state of Colorado, by and through the Department of Natural Resources and the Colorado Water Conservat1on Board; the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservanoy Distriot; the City of Aspen; and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of P1tkin 1s approved 1n princ1ple, reserv1ng the right to protect the posit1on of the Board as to adopted polioy and ourrent litigation. The intent hereof is not to be taken as an affirmanoe of the opinion of the Solioitor, Department of Interior, rendered June 28, 1978, on the Fryingpan-Arkansas Projeot." (CRWCD, Oct. 31, 1979, Appendix D) Baloomb reported at the July 1979 meeting "We have received the decision from Judge Lohr as to River Distriot di11genoe 1n D1v1sion 5. Judge Lohr found the D1str1ot had been d11igent for the period May 1, 1972 through April 30, 1976~ with regard to the Basalt Projeot, exoept Ashoroft Reservoir, the Bluestone Projeot, the Flattops Projeot, the West Div1de Projeot, the M~ddle Park ProJeot, inolud1ng Rabb1t Ear, Troublesome and Azure (exoept the power plant) the Rangely Projeot, the Redcl1ff Projeot, and the Br1dges Switch Pumping P1pe11ne to the extend of 29 ofs, and Cameo to the ex'tent of 15 ofs. He oanoelled for laok of d1l1genoe Ashoroft Reserv01r, Eagle Valley Projeot 1nclud1ng Yeoman Park Reserv01r, the Edwards Reserv01r, the Snowmass Projeot, and the untransferred balanoe of I Aspen Page 99 Bridges Swi toh and Cameo. liThe cancellation of Yeoman Park Reservoir was inconsistent with the decree he entered the same date in C.A~ 1529 for former Water Distriot No. 37 wherein he granted water rights for the Hat Creek and Nolan Creek Feeder Canals to supply water to Yeoman Park Reservoir, and we reoommend he be asked to straighten this out by motion for new trial and appeal, i f neoessary. the oanoellation of Ashoro~t We do not oonsider Reservoir to be of any signifioance s the drilling of the damsite disclosed a total laok of foundation suitable for a dam. We do not consider the cancellation of the Glenwood Canyon Forebay and Power Plant oan be refiled at any time. to be signifioant sinoe it We do consider the canoellation of Ed- wards Reservoir to be of significance since Edwards Reservoir is subjeot to an option agreement with Tosco, as is Yeoman Park Reservoir. We would recommend that Edwards Reservoir be included in any motion for new trial and appeal. The oanoellation of the Snowmass Project should be referred to Pitkin County and Aspen as that projeot was aSSigned to them. IIOur erent. position on the cancellation of Bridges Switoh is diff- It is impossible for us to work on all projects at once. Because of our st~tutovy limitations on revenue, we should not be bound to attempt development of all claims simultaneously, and the court indicates it so believes. Yet the decree of the court indi- cates that some effort must be made in each diligence period on e project. The court also ruled that it would n~consider that dili- gence on part of the claims (except within individual projects such j as West Divide) to be diligence as to all, primarily because this Board had not indicated it so viewed diligence. The Court may well I Aspen Page 100 be oorreot in its ruling on the latter point, but is, we believe, inoorreot on the former. We reoommend that objeotion to suoh ruling be inoluded in a motion for new trial and appeal. II (CR\iCD, July 17, 1979, Counsel's report, Pages 2-4) The Board passed a motion IJD1reot1ng oounsel to appeal the ru11ng of the D1vision 5 Water Court in Case #W-789-76 1nsofar as ' the ruling speaks to work on any R1ver D1str1ot projeot representing d1l1gence on all projeots and so far as the ru11ng addresses R1ver Distr10t deorees for Yeoman Park Reservo1r and Glenwood Canyon Forebay and instruot1ng oounsel to oonsult w1th oounsel for the City of A:spen and P1tkin County as to the ruling on the Snowmass Projeot, the deorees-for wh10h had been qua11f1edly ass1gned to the C1ty of Aspen and P1tkin COWlty by the Distr1ot. II (CRi'lCD, July 17, 1979, Page 3) At their October 1980 meeting, the Board passed a motion "That the act10ns of staff and counsel in perform1ng surveys and mak1ng app11oation for water rights and deorees as direoted by the President and heretofore approved by the Board, the Juniper-Cross Mountain Committee and/or the Exeoutive Comm1ttee, for: ••• Pabst Power Conduit ••• are hereby ratif1ed, approved and oonfirmed." (CRII/CD, Oot. 21, 1980, Pages 2-3) At the Jan. 20, 1981 meeting, the Board passed a motion "Adopting a resolution for preparation and filing of an applioat1on for a refill right for Rued1 Reservoir. II (CRWCD, Jan. 20, 1981, Page 3) The resolution states: "Whereas, the Colorado River Water j Conservation Distriot is the Olfller and olaimant of the deoree for Ruedi Reservoir on the Fryingpan River in Pitkin and E~gle Counties, ~_e_n________P_a~g~e__1_0_l__~ and, addltlonally, holds deorees for the Ruedl Penstook and Power Plant and Ruedi AfterbaYi and "Whereas, lt appears deslrab1e to file for and obtaln a right to refl11 sald reservolr lf water therefor beoomes aval1ab1e, ln ald of the orlgina1 purposes for said reservoir, as well as ln ald of hydroe1eotrl0 power and energy produotion. "Now, therefore, be it resolved, that staff are hereby dlreoted to take the steps, lnoludlng the employment of special counsel neoessary to obtain a right to annually refill Ruedi Reservoir in an amount equal to its present useable capacity." (CRWCD, Jan. 20, 1981, Appendix B) At a speoial meetlng ln February, the Board passed motlons IIDirectlng staff and counsel to oppose a Ruedi Reservolr refill righ application filed in the water court by the City of Aspen and Pitkin ~ i County. II And, "Instructing staff and oounsel to file applications ae requlred for refl11 rights for reservolrs decreed to the River District. " And, "Instructing negotiation with the Water and Power R&souroes Service of a temporary water servioe contract for water from Rued1 Reservoir." (CRWCD, Feb. 24, 1981, Page 2) From the January and February actions, and from letters and memorandums attached to the February minutes, there is an inference of serious problems between Pitkin County and the River District although the minutes do not reveal the nature of the problem. The attachments deal with oritioisms of the District's accounting pro- j cedures by Pitkin County Finance Director Tom Oken and Ray Monahan" s responses. Monaham & Morton, P.C. Was the District's auditor. @ [S'=> I Aspen ~ Page 102 r~'~'-::~--O-k-e-n-'-,-s-c-o-mm-e-n-t-s~we-r-e-so-l-i-o-i-t-e-d-b-y-B-Ob-Ch-i-l-d-,-o-h-a-i-r-m-an-o-f-t-h-e l ~ Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. He suggested "after a very quiok review" that the District find a new auditor. Monahan termed Okenls memorandum "presu~ous and 1nsulting." Hamburg reported on the Water D1v1sion 5 dillgenoe matter at the July 1981 meet1ng: "The applioation for a quadrenn1al. f1nding of reasonabl.e d1l1genoe was 1nit1ated on May 28, 1976. The appl.loation related to fifteen projeots throughout Water Division 5 and that portion of Water Divis10n 6 w1th1n the jurisdiotion of the Division 5 Water Court. The trial on this matter oommenoed in Ootober, 1978. uThe trial oourt entered a deoree f1nd1ng that reasonable d1ligenoe had been exeroised 1n the development of many but not all of the water r1ghts. o :% I The part10ular water rights on projeots oanoe led were Ashoroft Reservoir, the Eagle Valley Projeot, Edwards Rese v01r, the Glenwood Canyon Projeot, the Snowmass Projeot, the Bridges Switoh Pump1ng P1pe1ine and the Cameo Projeot. "The River D1str1ot appeal the ruling of the tr1al oourt stating that the oourt erred 1n requir1ng, as a matter of law, that d1ligenoe work peouliar and un1que to eaOh water projeot be performe and that extenslve aotivit1es admittedly benefit1ng eaoh proje,ot equally were 1nsuff1oient to sustain a find1ng of reasonable dill"",o,.""",,, uIn addlt10n a separate appeal was taken to the Oolorado Supreme Court on the Glenwood Oanyon Projeot. An add1t1on81 quest10 oonoern1ng the proper test of d111genoe on oond1t1ona1 water r1ghts was set before the court. j uThese two .oases were argued before the Coler ado Supreme Court by John Carlson and myself on June 17, 1981. From the quest1 s , , . @ ~ Page 103 I Aspen ~ ~,~----~----------------------------~ ~ asked by the Supreme Court, I felt the oourt may be lean1ng towards ~ reversal ~ port, Pages 2-3) ~ or the trial court~· (caWCD. July 21. 1981. COWlsel' e re- ~ ~ ~ ~ @ @ <=i§) F1soher reported at the Ootober meet1ng that "The FERC has 1ssued a pre11minary study permlt for a potent1al hydroeleotr10 fao111ty on Rued! Reserv01r to the C1ty of Aspen and P1tkin County. ~ Previously the Board 1nstruoted oppos1ng the 1ssuanoe of a pre11m- ~ 1nary perm1 t to anyone other than the R1 ver D1str1ot. I have dis- oussed th1s matter w1th Bob McCarty and h1s otf1oe 1s prepar1ng an appeal ot the FERC staff deo1sion. I request Board "d1soussion and rev1ew toward the poss1b111ty ot reoons1derat10n." (CRWCD, Oot. 20, 1981, Seoretary-Engineer's Report, Page 4) The Board approved a mot10n "D1reot1ng oounsel not to appeal the FERO staff deoision to issue a pre1iminary FERO study permit to the City of Aspen and Pitk1n County for a potent1al hydroeleotr10 fao111ty on Rued1 Reserv01ro" (CRWCD, Oot. 20, 1981, Page 3) F1scher reported at the January 1982 meet1ng that lAs reported 1n my Jan. II, 1982 letter, oross deposit1ons w111 be taken Feb. 8 or 9, 1982, oonoernlng ref11l rights on Rued! Reserv01r. "Don Hamburg has reoe1ved dooumentat1on oonoern1ng the_ Rued! Water Author1ty formed by contraot among Aspen, P1tk1n County, Basalt, Carbondale, Snowmass and Glenwood Spr1ngs, and he will oommente We request Board d1souss1on." (CRWCD, Jan. 19, 1982, Seore- tary-Eng1neer's report, Page 3) Hamburg reported on the matter at the July meet1ng: uApprox1mately one and one-half years ago the R1ver D1str10t objeoted to a water r1ghts app11oat1on by A:"spen and P1 tkin County (applioants) tor a seoond t1111ng of Rued1 Reservo1r (102,000 @ ~~--------------~ ~ aore feet. ~ r1ght to fl1l Ruedl Reservolr. §J2J ~ ~ ~ As you know, the R1ver for a seoon4 fllllng. Aspen Page 104 ls the owner ot the flr t Also, the Rlver Dlstrlot has flled Applloants have flled an entry of appearanoe ln the Rlver D1strlot's oase. H ~ "The major objeotlons of the Rlver Dlstrlot may be summar- H €9 @ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ lzed as follows: "1. Have appllcants taken the necessary 'flrst step' towards lnltlatlng an .approprlatlon of the water avallable for refl1l1.ng Ruedl Reservoir' "2. Do the Operatlng Principles for the Frylngpan-Arkansas Projeot, House Dooument 130» 87th Congress, 1st Sesslon, 11mlt the r1ght to obtain an appropr1atlon to refill Rued1 Reservoir to the Colorado River Water Conservation Distr10tt u3. Whether or not App11cants are ent1tled to a deoree for ref1ll1ng Rued1 Reservolr becuase the reservoir was constructed for the beneflt of all of the inhabitants on the Western Slope and not just Aspen and Pitkin County, "I have spent the last two weeks preparlng for tr1al. and I have also spent a oonsiderable amount of t1me w1th ~~. attorney for the App11oants, 1n an effort to settle the oase. Rolly Mus1ok, Un- fortunately, no formula has been devised wh1ch e1ther s1de felt 1t could take to its respect1ve Board. As a result the matter was tr1ed last week to the lfater Judge on questions of law and st1pulate4 faots. The partles agreed that the only obJeot1on to be tr1ed at th1s t1me 1s the f1rst obJeot1on listed above. j ed a deol slon. u As of th1s wr1tlng, the oourt has not rende~ (CRWCD, July 15, 1982, Counsel1s report, Pages 3-4 @ ~~----------------------------------~ r ~ Aspen Page lOS Hamburg reported 1n Ootober that liOn Sept. 7, 1982 I wrote to you that Judge L1tw1ller had favorably deo1ded the matter of Asp ~ ~ and the County of Pitkin by denying those ent1ties the r1ght for a ~ seoond f1ll for Rued1 Reservoir. At that t1me I enolosed a oopy of H ~ Judge L1twiller's opinion. v=:J €0 @ II Sinoe that time, Aspen and the County of Pitkin have appe '=@ ~ ~ ed Judge Litw1ller's deoision to the Colorado Supreme Court.D WeD, Oot. 12, 1982, Counsell s report, Page 3) (aR