Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0012~2 <br />BLACK CANYON INFORMATION PAPI:R <br /> <br />Oct. 2000 <br /> <br />Having used the direct flow up to its maximum, the lower basin States were at that time very <br />anxious to obtain congressional authorization for a storage structure which would permit the <br />storage of flood flows in the wet years for later use in dry years, thus permitting greater uses in <br />the lower basin. The efforts of the lower basin to obtain authorization of such a structure were <br />resisted bitterly by the upper basin States on the grounds that, if that structure were built and <br />those waters were stored you would thereby ~'ncourage even more rapid growth in the lower <br />basin, and you would preclude any future development of the upper basin States. <br /> <br />California, and Arizona, too, in order to achieve their goal of securing storage in the lower <br />basin to assist in the development of the lower basin, were quite willing to sit dawn and negotiate <br />a compact which would give reasonable assurances to the upper basin that they would not be <br />forever precluded from use of an equitable share of the water of the stream. As a result, we have <br />the Colorado River compact. <br /> <br />Testimony ofMr, Larson, p. 286, responding to a question regarding the two phases of the <br />Curecanti storage unit: In the original plan submitted in House Document 364 we included what <br />is known as the large Curecanti Reservoir, with a capacity of 2 ~ million acre-feet, as a unit of <br />the Colorado storage project, mostly for regulation of the Gunnison River, as a part of the entire <br />Colorado River regulatory system. <br /> <br />Since that time, at the request of the State of Colorado and by the action of the House and <br />Senate committees, this capacity has been reduced to 940,000 acre-feet. After the hearings a <br />year ago, we studied a modified plan to work out a better development for utilizing the <br />powerhead and storage possibilities on the Gunnison River with a smaller Curecanti Reservoir. <br />The purpose of our report on the modified plan is to inform you of what we found out in our <br />reconnaissance investigation. Page 2 of the report included in my statement gives our estimated <br />reconnaissance construction costs, and it shows that by building the small Curecanti with the <br />capacity of 940,000 acre-feet and 3 power dams below Curecanti, that the entire development <br />can be worked out with a power-generation cost mentioned on page 3, namely, the average cost <br />of 6 f2 mills per kilowatt-hour, which is less than alternative steam power costs given in the table <br />on page 3 as 8.3 mills per kilowatt-hour. <br /> <br />Information from House Document No. 364, 83d Congress, 2d Session2 <br />Colorado River Storage Proiect. Letter from Assistant Secretary of the Interior transmitting a <br />Report on the Colorado River Storage Proie(,rt and participating projects. providing for the <br />develoDment and utilization of the water and related resources of the Upper Colorado River <br />Basin. Dursuant to the federal reclamation laws. April 6, 1954. <br /> <br />Statement by the President included at page 1 supporting the Secretary of the Interior's <br />recommendations. The Secretary of the Interior recommended the development on the Gunnison <br />River, <br /> <br />B-3 <br /> <br />2 Also found in Vol. I ofLelrislative Actions Colorado River Storage Proiect. <br />