t Glenwood Springs - January 19, 1960 Auspices Lions and Kiwanis Clubs What I have to say this evening will be divided into two parts. First, I want to discuss the Fryingpan-Basalt agreement and, second, the proposed formation in the main basin of the Colorado River of a conservancy district. F RYINGPAN-BASALT P ROJECTS ACCORD. For years Wester n and Eastern Colorado have been at loggerheads over a proposal to take the water of the Gunnison and Roaring Fork Rivers into the Arkansas Valley by means of two phases of what has been termed the Gunnison-Arkansas Project, originally proposed by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. This scheme would have diverted approximately 600, 000 acre feet of Color ado River water to the Arkansas watershed. In passing, it should be stated that it is now estimated that only about one million acre feet of water remain in the River for the future agricul• tural, municipal and industrial development of all of the natural basin of the Colorado River within the State. The diversion of 60% of all the water we have left was, therefore, unthinkable, and, if accomplished, would be disastrous to Western Color a do and to the State of Colorado itself. Water is t he key which will unlock the vast sto1·ehouse of natural resources which lie on t his side of t he Contine ntal Divide ; without an ample supply of water , t his treasure-house will for ever remain locked up and will never be available to our area, our State or our Nation. It should be borne in mind that practically all of the untapped natural re­ sources in Colorado are in the portion of the State which lies West of the Divide. The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was originally conceived as the first phase of the Gunnison-Arkansas Project. The second stage com­ prehended the taking, from the Gunnison River itself, by means, among other facilities, of a 34-mile tunnel extending from Almont on the Gunnison to the vicinity of Salida, of more than one-half million acre feet of water. In 1951 an accord was reached between Eastern Colorado and The Colorado River Water Conservation District, in the matter of the Gunnison-Arkansas Project, comprehending these essential agreements: 1. Any diversion from the Gunnison Basin would be abandoned; and only the first phase or stage of the over-all project, the Fryingpan­ Ar kansas Project, would be constructed. 2. This project would be constructed under Federal Reclama­ tion laws with federal funds, the cost of construction being then estimated at approximately $168, 000. 000. 3. An average of 69, 200 acre feet of water per year would be diverted by means of the project. This limitation was not, as I analyze the 1951 agreement, clearly defined or definitely established. Many feared that more water than that amount could and would be taken from the stream in the future. 4. To be used for the purposes of replacement for Fryingpan­ Arkansas diversions, the Aspen Reservoir would be constructed on the ., Roaring Fork River, with a capacity of 28, 000 acre feet. The total capa­ city of this Reservoir would be available for replacement purposes to meet senior demands, both those existing at the time of construction, and demands which will come into existence in the future. 5. The water stored in the Aspen Reservoir, in excess of replacement requirements, would be available for sale for \\estern Colo­ rado uses at a price comparable to the per acre foot cost of project water in the Arkansas Valley. 6. No further federally financed transmountain diveraions from the Colorado River would be approved by the Colorado Water Con­ servation Board until the amount of water needed for use in Western Colorado should be determined. It should be noted that the 1951 settlement did not provide that Western Colorado should be protected in the use of the water it did need. This settlement, in the opinion of many individuals in Western Colorado, including specifically people in Pitkin County, did not adequately protect Western Colorado in the respects I shall later mention; and, when a bill to authorize construction of the project was introduced in Congress, it met with determined opposition from this area and failed of passage. In 1958, the Colorado River Water Conservation District obtained a conditional decree to the Basalt Project. in the District Court 3. of Garfield Countym under the provis ions of which all of the water flowing in the Fryingpan River was awarded to that project, laaving none for transmountain diversions. The Ruedi Reservoir is the heart and soul of the Basalt Project. This decree created somewhat of a furor in Eastern Colorado, particularly in the Arkansas Valley. The South­ eastern Colorado Water UserD Association, the then sponsor of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, filed a petition in the adjudication pro­ ceedings in which the Basalt decree was entered, asking that its state­ ment of claim for that project be permitted to be filed, and that it be awarded a conditional decree for the Fryingpan Project with a priority date senior to that awarded to the Basalt Project. At this point, the Colorado Water Conservation Board stepped in and about about the formation of a new Policy and Review Committee to consider the entire matter and, if possible. to work out a settlement under which both the Basalt and the Fryingpan Projects could be con­ structed. The Committee included representatives of the Water Con­ servation Board, the Arkansas Valley people and representatives of Western Colorado. After several months of negotiations, the Commit- tee worked out a revised set of operating principles for the Fryingpan• Arkansas Project which, in effect, also were to become operating principles for the Basalt Project. These are the effects of these revised principles: 1. The Ruedi Reservoir on the Fryingpan, with a capacity of not less than 100, 000 acre feet, was substituted for the Aspen Reservoir on the Roaring Fork, the total capacity of which had been fixed, as 4. before stated, at 28, 000 acre feet. The Ruedi Reservoir must be con­ structed and in operation before any diversions are made by means of the Fryingpan Project. 2. A definite limitation upon the Fryingpan diversions of an average of 69, 200 acre feet, ov er each consecutive period of 34 years, was established, with a maximum diversion in any one year of 120, 000 acre feet. 3. Of the total storage in Ruedi Reservoir, the Fryingpan Project is entitled to utilize only the amount required for replacement purposes for use in Western Colorado existing at the date of the approval of the operating principles. If, when the participating projects are con­ structed, additional replacement was is required in order that the Fryingpan diversions may not be adversely affected, that project must make provision for such additional replacement requirements. I will speak of this provision and its importance a little later. 4. The operating principles guarantee that the flow of the Fryingpan and all of its tributaries below the points of diversion of the Fryingpan Project. will be maintained in such minimum amounts as will fully protect these streams as sport fishing areas. 5. The use of the water of the stream for fishing is recognized as a beneficial use; and the courts are thus given jurisdiction to enter such injunctive or other orders as are necessary to protect these fish flows. 5. 6. If it be found to be economically feasible. the Ashcroft Reservoir is to be constructed on Maroon Creek for the benefit of the City of Aspen and other water users. present and future. in the Roaring Fork Basin; and this construction is to be a part of the over-all project. 7. The water stored in the Ruedi Reservoir. above replace­ ment requirements. is to be available for use in Western Colorado for irrigation. municipal and industrial purposes. the latter term including. specifically. the development of the oil shale industry. under repayment contracts between the United States and those who actually use the water. The price basis for this water will not be what is paid by Arkansas Valley users; but the repayment s chedule will be based on a formula which is set up in the Colorado River Storage Project Act. which pro­ vides, among other things. that such repayment; as to water used for irrigation purposes; will be without interest. 8. The conditional decree to the Basalt Project and that to the Fryingpan Project are ruade one decree; and the administrntion of these rights is to be in accordance with Colorado laws and by the State E ngineer of Colorado and his subordinate water officials. 9. The sum of $7. 600~ 000 of the cost of construction of t he Ruedi Reservoir is to be paid by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. This sum represents the original estimated cost of construction of the Aspen Reservoir. 6. These are the highlights of the revised operating principles. There are other provisions which time will not permit me to discuss. Some objection has been made to these principles for the reason that the amount of replacement water which is to be available in Ruedi Reservoir for Fryingpan diver:oions is not definitely limited in terms of acre feet per year; and I should like to discuss that phase of the matter. briefly. What is replacement water? Why is it neces sary. in trans• mountain diversions. that provision be made for replacement water? These are questions which must be answered before the replacement status of Ruedi Reservoir can be understood. It is estimated that about 70% of the total flow of the Colorado River is produced in a period of approximately six weeks.