My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
South Platte Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
South Platte Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2010 3:41:20 PM
Creation date
6/23/2010 1:06:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
South Platte Steering Committee
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
10/6/1961
Author
South Platte Steering Committee
Title
South Platte Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
MR. B. DAVIS: "It seems that we are at the tail end here <br />and it seems generally that we are going to bene- <br />fit more by being closer to the reservoir site <br />obtained. It is certainly true, as Mr. Sarchet <br />has pointed out, that a greater area will be <br />benefited by placing it further upstream. I just <br />am somewhat skeptical of the efficiency as to our <br />locality of an upstream reservoir in the rate of <br />loss that would be occasioned without some supple- <br />mental site being affected." <br />MR. SARCHET: "Mr. Davis, what was your feeling as to the <br />demand for additional water for irrigation in <br />your area? Would there be sufficient demand below <br />the Narrows to take care of the potential ?" <br />MR. B. DAVIS: "I doubt if there would be. That's something <br />that we would have to go into more thoroughly be- <br />fore I would be able to say definitely." <br />MR. GILDERSLEEVE: "Mr. Ross, do you have any comment at this <br />time on the Bureau's report ?" <br />MR. ROSS: "Yes. Denver takes the position here, pri- <br />marily one of watching to see what or which of <br />the two sites for downstream storage would be of <br />the most benefit to that stream. We don't really <br />feel that we're in a position to say Weld County <br />is superior to Narrows or vice versa at this time. <br />The feeling we have had is, and I'm glad to have <br />heard it expressed both by Mr. Osborne, Mr. Sloan, <br />Mr. Sarchet, and others, that what we are talking <br />about here as a function for this committee is a <br />regulation of the whole stream and that the up- <br />stream storage, very likely at the Two Forks site, <br />very clearly presents possibilities which might <br />make the whole project more feasible than just the <br />building of Narrows alone or Weld County alone. <br />The question I would pose to representatives <br />of the Bureau of Reclamation who are here today, <br />is whether, in their site selection studies, they <br />have considered the exchange potential which might <br />be created by the upstream storage in Two Forks. <br />I gather from the report that this is simply an <br />evaluation of the site itself, rather than the <br />hydrologies related to it. Is that correct? I <br />-11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.