My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00284
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00284
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:48:13 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:34:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/12/1971
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
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.
/
120
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 />heighth of about 100 feet which would keep the <br />water from backing up in the lake. The problem <br />is - what do you do with the stream flow coming <br />in from the other side? The only answer is to <br />pump the water from the creek over the dam into <br />the reservoir. <br /> <br />Another problem is that there is virtually <br />no material in the area to build a dam with. <br />The plans were to strip the mountain (Bill, <br />can you point out the top of that mountain?), <br />to strip that mountain for material to build <br />the dam. That is a sheer mountain. I don't <br />know how anyone could get equipment up there. <br />It could be brought in by boat, I presume, and <br />then material could be removed from the top of <br />that mountain. Really nobody wants that, <br />Friends of the Earth notwithstanding. I don't <br />think they want it either. To tear up a <br />mountain in order to build an unsightly dam <br />just below the bridge is ridiculous. In such <br />case people would have to climb the dam, unless <br />the Bureau wants to put in an elevator. I <br />would guess that because of today's costs we <br />are talking about something like $30 million <br />to build such protective works. The maintenance <br />thereafter, the pumping of the water, would be <br />a continuous expense ever after. <br /> <br />The alternative, of course, is to prevent <br />any further water from being impounded in Glen <br />Canyon Reservoir. This would be disastrous to <br />the Upper Basin. For all practical purposes <br />Glen canyon would be useless to the Upper Basin, <br />although some $300 million or thereabouts was <br />expended in its construction. It is the key <br />feature of the whole Upper Basin development. <br />Power could still be produced, although at a <br />reduced level. At that elevation the reser- <br />voir would hold around 15 million acre-feet. <br />It would have to be dried up many years in <br />order to make our compact commitment to the <br />Lower Basin. Even with Glen Canyon we still <br />don't have quite enough storage on the river to <br />utilize the surplus flows of the high years. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.