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 />26b <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Tipton stated that he came down at the request of <br />Dean Crawford. At the very beginning there was an <br />insistence on the part of the State of Colorado that <br />there be included on the project a unit on the Gunnison <br />River. Those working on it were 100% for it. It took <br />considerable pressing to get the Bureau to consider it. <br />The Board did not accept Whitewater as Judge Hughes was <br />opposed to it. It was not a good unit so far as the <br />storage project was concerned. We then took it (Cure- <br />cantil up with the Bureau again, and had the local op- <br />position to the two and a half million acre-feet project. <br />We had a verbal commitment that it would be received <br />favorably by the Bureau, but since then the rules have <br />changed. The 940,000 acre-feet Curecanti does not have <br />a chance, no matter how hard anyone pushes it. The <br />rules have been changed. The Bureau of Reclamation was <br />then a promoting agency rather than a down-to-earth, <br />data-collecting and building agency. <br /> <br />~ir. Tipton further stated that he could remember <br />in the 80th Congress some of the Committee members stated <br />to us that they knew something had happened to them, so <br />far as expenditure of public funds was concerned, but <br />they didn't know what it was. Since that time there has <br />been some investigations made. The Bureau of the Budget <br />has done a great amount of work. Finally as a result of <br />this work, the Bureau of the Budget came out with what <br />is called Circular A-47. That was issued by the Bureau <br />of the Budget December, 1952. He said, that in his opinion, <br />that is only a start. He thinks it has gone too far in <br />some respects. Formerly Curecanti was combined with the <br />other units. It registered high, but the cost was compara- <br />tive. The yardstick for measuring the value of hydro- <br />power at this point would be the cost of producing energy <br />by steam. The cost of producing energy by steam would have <br />to be estimated. In working it out the Bureau used a capa- <br />city value of $25.80, which is high enough. Even in a <br />commercial plant, the capacity value would run around <br />$22.00. On a 50% load factor, this would come out 8 or 9 <br />mills. That is less than the cost of hydro-energy from <br />the 940,000 Curecanti Reservoir. <br /> <br />In the revaluation of the cost of the 940,000 re- <br />servoir and power plant, the cost was reduced somewhat <br />below that which we were formerly using. There can be no <br />credit taken for any consumptive use of water, unless <br />that use was definitely in the picture. The Bureau of <br />Reclamation hopes to convince the Secretary of the Interior <br />and the Bureau of the Budget that a special exception <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.