My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00146
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00146
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:45:39 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:32:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
12/30/1953
Description
Minutes and Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 />I <br /> <br />Paragraph 7: "The State of Colorado requests that, in <br />addition to its previous comments, there be included <br />in the initial authorization, the Cross Mountain <br />Reservoir on the Yampa and approximately 3,000,000 <br />acre-feet of total new storage on the Colorado River <br />and its tributaries above Grand Junction, Colorado. <br />It also approves construct:ing-Denver's Bille River <br />Transmountain Diversion by Federal financing." <br /> <br />Paragraph 8 of the Findings and Recommendations should be <br />changed to read: <br /> <br />"The known reservoir sites which might accomplish <br />this objective are Curecanti and Whitewater on the <br />Gunnison and DeBeque on the Colorado River. Additional <br />investigations may disclose other sites. There is <br />little doubt but that the amount of storage requested <br />will be needed. Cross Mountain is a feasible <br />development as shown by the Supplement Report. Detail <br />investigations may well show the others to be feasible <br />also. Colorado requests a conditional authorization <br />and assurance that the investigations necessary to <br />determine feasib~lity be made promptly by the Bureau <br />and as rapidly as the fund situation will permit. It <br />would be our intention, of course, to recommend con- <br />struction of those units if they are found feasible. <br /> <br />"Denver's Blue River Transmountain Diversion proposal, <br />insof~.~~ ~ are aware, is basically a matter of <br />seekingetf1~~~cing of a plan to be carried forward by <br />the City. Litigation affecting the use of Blue River <br />water is now pending. The feasibility of such a <br />diversion depends, among other things, on the outcome <br />of this litigation, or on some alternative thereto <br />which satisfactorily protects the Colorado-Big <br />~hompson Project." <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts suggested that the following be an addendum to <br />Paragraph 10 of the Findings and Recommendations: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"WRen a firm and detail proposal is received, we will <br />be glad to review it and if satisfactory from all <br />aspects make suitable recommendations. It may well <br />be that arrangements would result such that the <br />proposal could be recommended as a participating <br />proj ect . " <br /> <br />3.11 <br /> <br />" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.