My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00444
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00444
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:50:09 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:38:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/11/1961
Description
Minutes
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.
/
76
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 />I <br /> <br />water of the South Platte, together with the <br />water which is decreed to Denver from the Blue <br />River. So we finally concluded that we would <br />do a great disservice to the South Platte Val- <br />ley unless we considered the small amount of <br />remaining water resources in the valley as a <br />single unit and try to determine the maximum <br />benefits from that unit. Not only can we serve <br />the municipalities from the Two Forks but there <br />is also some irrigated land between the Two Forks <br />and the Hardin site, or the Narrows, which <br />should be served by any project development in <br />this area. <br /> <br />Essentially we agreed that the investiga- <br />tions should follow those lines. We should <br />consider this as a single unit and we should <br />ask that it be a participating unit of the <br />Missouri Basin Project and that Colorado parti- <br />cipate in those power revenues which originate <br />in states down below. To date we have re- <br />ceived nothinq from the Missouri Basin develop- <br />ment, but we are entitledEY law to a portion <br />of those power revenues which accrue to the <br />Basin Fund. These are not allocated specifi- <br />cally to states as are revenues under the Colo- <br />rado River Storage Project Act. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />To broaden this scope we have a brand new <br />plan. First, we must evaluate the Hardin site <br />in connection with the Narrows site. Which is <br />the best site from an economic vieWpoint? <br />Where can we get the most water and what are <br />the relative costs? Now we have all the in- <br />formation on both the Narrows site and the Two <br />Forks site. The drilling and so on has been <br />done years ago. We have no information on the <br />Hardin site.' without further field work the <br />Bureau cannot formulate a cost estimate of that <br />project. But the project is of great magnitude <br />and involves close cooperation with Denver and <br />all the other municipalities which may be able <br />to benefit from the project. It involves close <br />coordination with all the irrigators that can <br />be served from the project and we have infO{med <br />all the people that we knew were directly in- <br />terested. We asked that they either be here <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.