My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00647
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00647
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:52:46 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:42:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
8/15/1973
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.
/
30
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 />Dominick, Mr. Balcomb, who said that, "He was unaware that the <br />President had ever excluded any such area." And I am quite sure he <br />said he was dubious that they ever would. And may I say, that is <br />precisely my view of the situation. But I say also, Why rely upon <br />an extended future effort to try to extract or eliminate from the <br />Wilderness area a specific reservoir site which on the face of the <br />record can do nothing but serve the public interests not only of <br />Colorado, the western slope, but the entire nation? And apropos of <br />my last statement, there is in the record before the Senate (and we <br />ran out of copies) a study called, "Power Distribution Study 190" <br />conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Northwest Power and the <br />Southwest Power. And there are fifty maps conservatively in that <br />study, and I would say thirty of the maps draw lines directly to the <br />Rocky Mountain Power site as one of the sources of peaking power and <br />hydroelectric power for the whole western grid. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Then may I suggest to you and Mr. Balcomb that if we <br />do consider this resolution, neither one of you would object to a <br />preamble in which we state that we realize that we kill both of these <br />projects as feasible projects as they are now envisioned by the <br />passage of this resolution. Is that right? I am just saying that if <br />we passed the resolution, I want it crystal clear that we are not <br />taking sides between you or the Colorado River District. I am just <br />wondering if you will agree to the fact that we have a preamble that <br />says in effect that we effectively kill these projects as they are <br />pertinently engineered by our further agenda item No. 3 resolution. <br />Would either one of you have any objection to that as being a fair <br />statement of what we are doing if we do it? <br /> <br />Mr. Balcomb: I don't object. <br /> <br />Mr. Brannan: That would be perfectly clear. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: All right. Now does the board have some questions of <br />Mr. Brannan? <br /> <br />Mr. Berthelson: Mr. Brannan, I appreciate your very fine statement. <br />There are some things I do want to know about your plans, though, that <br />you didn't bring out in very great detail. What is the extent of <br />your filings? How much water is filed on by Rocky Mountain Power on <br />the headwaters of the White River? <br /> <br />Mr. Brannan: Ninety thousand acre-feet, and I would say our geologist <br />or geologists which have looked at it, are not sure that it is actu- <br />ally available. And in effect, it really catches the spring runoffs <br />and would be used and then re-cycled until the next year, and then <br />turn them over to the oil shale people. <br /> <br />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.