THE COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT THIRD FL.OOR, FIRST NATIONAL. BANK BUIL.DING P.O. BOX 218 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 303/945-6602 September 24, 1971 Mr., Willia,m R Dunaway, Editor Aspen Times P.O. Box E Aspen, Colorado 8,,1611 e' Dear Mr. Dunaway: The interest of Aspen and Pitkin ,in transmountain, diversions has inGreased markedly; this is an excellent sign. TheAspen Times recently ran a word and picture story on the Twin Lakes transmountain diversion and the reporter did a good job. In light of the increased interest,' I'd like to discuss these matters. The Colorado River Water Conservation District is the prime western slope water agency. The District was established by State Statute in 1937 and is an outgrowth of the old'Western Slope Protective Association, which was an informal organization founded in opposition to the Colorado-Big Thompson Transmountain Diversion, as it was originally' proposed. Over the years the River District came to include all of 12 and parts of 3 more western Colorado counties. Essentially these counties 'are the headwaters ; of the Colorado River Basin in Colorado and as such the Yampa, the 'White, the Main Stem Colorado, the Gunnison and the Little Dolores and their tributaries. , Although the River District is primarily charged with encouraging the conservation and the development of waters for beneficial use within those counties, much of our effort still involves just trying to keep water in the basins and counties of origin so it can eventually be put to beneficial use and enjoyed / there, and so over the years the River District has been in the forefront of the ' fight that involves transmountain diversions. Fundamentally the waters of the State of Colorado are available to the public for application for beneficial use any place within the State. Part of the problem is that there are more opportunities to apply water to beneficial use on the eastern slope than on the western slope, where Colorado's great mountain rivers originate. Approximately 85% of the State's population is on the eastern . .. r - .• . . Mr. William R. Dunaway September 24, 1971 Page 2 slope. At least that much, and probably more, of the State's economical force is also on the eastern slope. From time to time I have visited with various groups in Aspen and Pitkin County and discussed water and water problems. We are cooperating not only With the City of Aspen concerning future water needs, but also with water user organizations in the Roaring Fork Valley. Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley need storage. Aspen and Pitkin County face increased transmountain diversions from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company diversions. Let there be no mistake about it, these diversions are perfectly legal. Wishes and threats will not make them go away. Because of the insistence of the Board of Directors of The Colorado River Water Conservation District, Ruedi Reservoir was constructed as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project for western slope water users. Without this District Ruedi Reservoir would not be there. The water is there to use. It is available for irrigation, municipal, domestic and recreation uses, but there is no guarantee it will always be there. The Cities of Colorado Springs and Pueblo want to pump some of it back. Because the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District must pay for Ruedi Reservoir with the other repayable facilities that are . part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, they and the Bureau of Reclamation will be lookipg for customers for that water. It is possible, although some Ruedi water may be used for irrigation, that in the changing economy of the Roaring Fork Valley Ruedi water may be used mostly for municipal and domestic purposes. But because Ruedi Reservoir was built to store water for multi-purpose uses, in the long term it can not be assumed that it will stay spill-way full. Among the court fights this District has fought and not won is the fight involving the Twin Lakes transmountain diversion. The Colorado Supreme Court in 197 a found in favor of the Twin Lakes Company regarding how much water they can divert in the future. In its wisdom, the Court decided that the Company's ancient decree of 625 second feet diversion out of the headwaters of the Roaring Fork was, indeed, still valid. The Company has not historically diverted its full amount, but it has told the Court that it intends to. Unfortunately, the same kind of operating constraints have not been placed upon the Twin Lakes Company as has been placed on the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and, therefore, the Company , . " ,..--- ,Mr. William R. Dunaway September 24, 1971 Page 3 will not be required to by-pass water in the stream below their diversion structures. Although the pressure of public opinion could change this, as it now stands, the Company can take all the water that it has facilities and decrees for. Although this letter has been written at the suggestion of Mr. Orest Gerbaz, the Pitkin County Director of this District, Mr. Gerbaz is' not the only Pitkin County citizen who is concerned about water and the effects of out-basin diversions, but he has probably fought the water battle longer and more ably than anyone else in Pitkin County. The Pitkin County Commissioners have expressed deep concern and so has the Aspen Convention and Visitors Bureau and the City of Aspen., This District would welcome the suggestions of the residents of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Roaring Fork Valley as to how we can be more in keeping more water in the basins and counties of Origin. Secretary-:-Engineer RCF:ebg cc: Orest A. Gerbaz , ...) .