Laserfiche WebLink
<br />282 <br /> <br />like particularly is a definite commitment from this <br />Board. When this Board decides to make any recommen- <br />dation on the Colorado River Storage project, that they <br />recommend that the Curecanti be included. They don't <br />see that this would jeapordize any other project in the <br />upper basin. They do want assurance from this Board <br />that when you get ready to make your recommendations <br />that Curecanti project will be included in these recom~ <br />mendation. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey stated that he felt the Board should <br />take concrete action before the 18th of January. <br /> <br />Mr. Riter said that as he sees it, it could be tied <br />in as a participating.project, if there is something <br />tangible. Potentialities have been explored, but there <br />has been no project actually integrated with Curecanti. <br />Curecanti could be put in as a storage report. Still we <br />would have to appraise these project potentialities. We <br />can't do too much investigation now; we don't have the <br />necessary money. He further stated that Curecanti could <br />be pulled out of the initial phase. <br /> <br />Mr. Saunders asked if Mr. Riter could cooperate with <br />the Board and engineers from the Western Slope, so by the <br />time this Board meets again, the people who wish to sup- <br />port Curecanti would have available factual data to back <br />a claim of feasibility under A-47. Mr. Saunders asked Mr. <br />Riter if he could cooperate so that all that information <br />could be available within four weeks. <br /> <br />Mr. Riter assured the Board that he would cooperate. <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher stated they were not going to recommend <br />the Curecanti project before the primary work is done, but <br />when the Board did get ready to ~ake a report that it would <br />assure Western Colorado that it will include Curecanti. <br /> <br />Mr.. Roberts wanted to know if it wasn't obviously de- <br />sirable for this Board to meet again at a relatively early <br />date, probably early in December, when they would have had <br />a month's time and a chance to digest Mr. Hill's report, <br />at which time the Board could give Mr. Breitenstein some I <br />very definite instructions on what attitude he is to take <br />at those hearings. Mr. Roberts hoped that we would be un- <br />animous in the inclusion of both Curecanti and the Denver <br />program projects; that the reports will support both and . <br />that Curecanti be upgraded to meet requirements of A-47. <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein stated he would like to know how <br />much of the construction of the 940,000 of the Curecanti <br />has to be assigned in order to make the power costs within <br />the limits of economy justified. <br />