Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />-26- <br /> <br />including: <br /> <br />(a) The Federal Government, because of its responsi- <br />bilities in the Mission Treaty and the Rio Grande <br /> <br />Compact. <br /> <br />(b) The Bureau of Sports and Fisheries and the <br /> <br />National Park Service for enhancement of recrea- <br /> <br />tional facilities. <br /> <br />(c) The State of Colorado because it provides her a <br /> <br />solution to the Rio Grande Compact obligation. <br /> <br />The cost analysis submitted by the V.S.B,R. in its <br /> <br />1963 report, along with those submitted by the Bureau of <br /> <br /> <br />Wildlife and Sports Fisheries and the National Park Service <br /> <br />appear consistent and reasonable. However, since these are <br /> <br />1963 costs, an escalation factor, should be applied to update <br /> <br />them to 1967. After checking various indices, including <br /> <br /> <br />the V.S.B.R., it is believed that costs have increased by <br /> <br />apprOXimately 10%. Even at current costs, and assuming no <br /> <br />increase in benefits, the benefit-cost ratio is still satis- <br /> <br />factory. <br /> <br />OBJECTIONS OF SAN LUIS VALLEY WATER USERS <br /> <br />There are, and will be, objections to this Project be- <br /> <br />cause it involves changes in water use; and, in the minds of <br /> <br />the landowners poses a threat to their source of well water <br /> <br />for irrigation. <br /> <br />There is general objection to the salvaging of water <br /> <br />in Colorado to provide water for New Mexico and Texas. Many <br /> <br />i,:: '; 41 {) <br />i., v t... . <br />