Laserfiche WebLink
<br />... "'"- ""- <br /> <br />SAN LUIS VALI,EY PROJECT <br /> <br />RIO GRANDE JIVISI8N REP~ <br /> <br />SUMMARY OF STATE ANI FElEl'lAL AGENCY C'MMENTS <br /> <br />State .f C.l.ra.. <br /> <br />A. Position <br /> <br />1. Plan not the most economical that can be conceived for the area. <br />2. Power cannot be justified from either an engineering or <br />economic standpoint. <br />3. A 1,OOO~OOO acre~foot reservoir cannot be justified from an <br />engineering standpoint. <br />4. Do not agree with flood control benefit evaluation. <br /> <br />B. Recommendations <br /> <br />1. Restudy to determine reservoir that will provide greatest <br />benefi t at least cost 'J ' <br />2. Restudy to determine manner in which reservoir operation <br />Can be coordinated with ground water storage. <br />3. Reevaluation of flood control benefits. <br /> <br />state of New Mexico <br /> <br />A. Position <br /> <br />1. Questions our operation studies. <br />2. Flood control features poorly conceived - not coordinated <br />with Middle Rio Grande Project. <br />3. Power features are not feasible. <br />4. Capacity of reservoir could be greatly reduced and still <br />provide required ~torage for irrigation and limited <br />flood control. <br />5. Litigation (Texas vs N.M.) clouds any proposed development. <br /> <br />B. Recommendations <br /> <br />1. Report not be transmitted to the Congress at this time. <br />2. Power features be eliminated. <br />3. Coordinate flood control features with MRG Project. <br />4. Evaluate need for main channel storage in N. M., including <br />flood control benefits now claimed for Wagon ~fueel. <br />5. No autho:!'i~ation or appropriation,s for construction until <br />project has been reevaluated and uncertainties arising from <br />current litigation are settled. <br /> <br />r. ,~' i' r~ -" (":I <br />~,.I'-. _V.J;.U <br />