My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00962
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00962
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:56:19 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:47:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/10/1953
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.
/
27
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 />262 <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher inquired about the benefit-cost ratio <br />on the small reservoir and was informed that the bene- <br />fit-cost ratio is .75. <br /> <br />Mr. Riter stated that by allocating a small amount <br />of the Curecanti cost to river regulation the cost of <br />electricity could be brought down a littl~ in this <br />allocation benefits brought the figure dow~ to 10 mills. <br />Mr. Riter further stated that in arriving at the 10 <br />mill figure, he was comparing it to the Whitewater <br />un i t. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher then asked if there were any other <br /> <br />benefits besides power, and Mr. Riter replied that none <br />had been realized yet, but if we could tie it into a <br />specific project, there would be no trouble. $5,000,000 <br />might be justified for the function of river regulation. <br /> <br />Mr. Pughe: "What is the estimated cost of the large <br />Curecanti?" <br /> <br />- <br />Mr. Riter: "$92,000,000 and the small one is $53,000,000." <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts asked for some explanation of the <br />sources of these potential benefits. <br /> <br />Mr. Riter pointed out the possibility of 'regulating <br />stream flow for further industrial development. Another <br />potential; the Curecanti could serve the Gunnison as a <br />regulating reservoir. Mr. Riter said that he didn't <br />know what the Secretary of the Interior was going to <br />write in his report. The Water Conservation Board, con- <br />sidering the whole proposition, has recommended the sub- <br />stitution of the Curecanti reservoir for the Whitewater <br />unit. <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey said that when the Denver request came <br />into the picture, the Board recinded that action. I'ir. <br />Bailey asked Mr. Breitenstein if he remembered that. <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein said he did and that's what he <br />had understood - that the action was recinded. <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey suggested that in order to get that <br />picture before these present, he would call on Mr. Breit- <br />enstein to tell what the situation was in regard' to that <br />proposed project. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein stated that he didn't know,how ne- <br />cessary the Colorado River Storage project was to the <br />state as a whole. The sister states have been promoting <br />and strenuously working ever since on the operation of <br />the Upper River Compact. Prior to 1950, there was some <br />discussion in Colorado as to what units should be authori- <br />zed, could Glen Canyon and Echo Park be included in the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.