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 />266 <br /> <br />should be made in this case because of the provisions <br />of the Colorado Compact. Now that is the situation. <br />Regardless of how much wishful thinking we have here <br />and,how hard we might push it, we would still be up , <br />agalnst t~e Department. The Department has become <br />conservatlve. You do have in the picture as has been <br />stated, Cross Mountain reservoir. It sta~ds next to <br />Glen Canyon in desirability and cost. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey then asked if anyone had any questions <br />they wished to ask Mr. Tipton. <br /> <br />Mr. Tipton further stated that storage on the <br />Gunnison River stands as essential. "There is a poten- <br />tial need and it is not very far in the future. We <br />should keep Curecanti in the picture. We ought to keep <br />Curecanti in as it stands. It will be a good unit when <br />there can be some repayment from industrial use.and there <br />is no reason whey there should not be". <br />, <br /> <br />Mr. Beaty asked if in Mr. Tipton's opinion, could <br />Cross Mountain be substituted for Curecanti? <br /> <br />Mr. Tipton replied ,that it was up to the Board. <br />From an engineering standpoint, including economy value <br />and stream regulation, it is a good unit. <br /> <br />Mr. Beaty asked if Curecanti should remain in the <br />current bill, and Mr. Tipton replied, "I think so." <br /> <br />Mr. Beaty then stated that it was pretty hard for <br />a layman to understand these things. That is ,~~y- he <br />wanted Mr. Tipton's opinion. <br /> <br />Mr. Tipton stated that if the state of Colorado could <br />build Cross Mountain, he thinks there would be a very <br />excellent chance to be recommended as an initial authori- <br />zation unit. <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher asked if it would effect the other units <br />if it were put in the initial phase. Mr. Tipton said, "No". <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Moses said that in the first place he realized <br />that Mr. Bennett and Mr. Riter had nothing to do with the <br />new regulation. Mr. Moses stated that he thinks it is <br />wrong to require any individual unit to stand entirely <br />on its own feet. He said we had a definite resp0nsibility <br />to our sis1er states, and it was not an unselfish one. <br />He pointed out that we also wanted their support, not <br />only on the Colorado River Storage~ but other projects <br />which we may have in the future. it is a policy matter <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.