Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7. Key Alternatives. - Although there will probably <br /> <br />be many modifications from the preliminary plan <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />outlined in this proposal, at least four main viable <br /> <br />alternatives should be considered at the very conception <br /> <br />p <br /> <br />of the proposed project. These alternatives do not <br /> <br />change the proposed goals on specific objectives, <br /> <br />but their early evaluation may influence the details <br /> <br />of the project plan and operating procedures. <br /> <br />(a) Funding. - This proposal assumes Federal <br /> <br />nonreimbursable research funds would provide the <br /> <br />majority of support for the project, although <br /> <br />substantial power revenues and other benefits <br /> <br />would accrue immediately. state cooperation and <br /> <br />some cost-sharing are planned. An alternative is <br /> <br />to have the states, water users, or some regional <br /> <br />organization fund the majority of the demonstration <br /> <br />costs. This funding alternative as well as <br /> <br />management alternatives are discussed in the <br /> <br />stanford Research Institute comprehensive study <br /> <br />of snowpack augmentation in the Basin 3/. <br /> <br />I <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />3/ Weisbecker, L. W., "Technology Assessment of Winter <br />Orographic Snowpack Augmentation in the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin" Final Report, National Science Foundation <br />Contract NSF-C64l, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo <br />Park, California, May 1972. <br /> <br />29 <br />