My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10458
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10458
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:13:02 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:20:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.110.60
Description
Colorado River Water Users Association
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
12/1/1960
Author
CRWUA
Title
Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />Let's go the whole way. Assume the Bureau of Reclamation would <br />sell power from the storage project through the Utilities I system at the <br />same rate it would charge over an all-Bureau system. A Bureau system <br />rate based on the Bureau's lawful requirements for establishing such a rate, <br /> <br />CHAR T IX <br /> <br />This chart shows what would happen. Funds for participating pro- <br />jects would be slashed almost in half. You would lose a half billion dol- <br />lars. Here is how it works. <br /> <br />We submit--The Secretary and the Congress did not intend toac- <br />cept the Utilities I proposal if such acceptance raised consumer power <br />rates, reduced dollars for irrigation assistance, or both. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Please allow me to prove this too. The basis for our belief was <br />clearly stated in House Document 1087, 84th Congress, which said: <br /> <br />CHAR l' X <br /> <br />"Therefore, the Committee expects the proposal by the <br />private power companies for cooperation in the development <br />to be carefully considered by the Department of the Interior <br />'and the electric power and energy of the project to be marketed <br />so far as possible, through the facilities of the electric utili- <br />ties operating in the area, provided, of course, that the power <br />preference laws are complied with and project repayment and <br />consumer power rates are not adversely affected. " <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It was further stated by letter of January 19, 1960, from the <br />Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation at Salt Lake City, to Mr. <br />Naughton of the Utah Power and Light Co. wherein he announced the prin- <br />ciples which the Bureau of Reclamation will follow in considering the pro- <br />posal of the Utilities, and I will quote the pertinent provision of that let- <br />ter: <br /> <br />CHAR T XI <br /> <br />"4. Charges made for delivery of power must <br />not adversely affect project feasibility and payout, <br />and particularly must be such'.as not to reduce <br />quantity or timing of irrigation assistance." <br /> <br />I am sure you will agree these are sound principles. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- 9 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.