BOARD01143

• Board Meeting Date: 12/11/1953
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

299

At the November 10, 1953 caeeting of the
Colorado Water Conservation Board, a motion
was passed directing the staff of the Board to
work with Western Slope and Bureau of Reclamation
engineers to determine whether the feasibility
of Curecanti Reservoir could be achieved under
the criteria of Ci~cular A-47 of the Bureau of
the Budget.

A meeting was held at the office of the Hoard
on November 25, 1953, att€nded by Ivan C. Crawford,
J. R. Riter, C. H. Jex, F. C. Merriell and R. M.
Gildersleeve. A numper of possibilities were
discussed, including allocations for river re-
gulation; replacement of Taylor Park reservoir
capacity to permit. tne generation of hydro power
at that site; development of the power head be-
tween Curecanti dam pite and the Gunnison tunnel;
flood control; municipal water supply; irrigation;
fish and wildlife and recreation.

I

With regard to river regulation, the lowest
cost single purpose regulatory system for the
Colorado. River, according to the report on the
Colorado River Storage Project, would consist of
Glen Canyon, Echo Park and Cross-Mountain Reser-
voirs, constructed to such size as to furnish
acti ve capacity of 23 million acre feet. after
200 years of sediment encroachment. The cost of
such a combination of dams and reservoirs would
be #337,500,000 or $14.67 per acre foot of active
capaci ty.

It was indicated that representatives of the Bureau of
Reclamation had suggested a maximum possible allocation to river
regtuation of $8,100,000 which would result in a power cost of
9.6 mills \tith all other costs than the river regulation allo-
cation c::.arged to power, incl uding all interest during con-
struction and annual operation, maintenance and replacement
costs.

On a similar basis, an allocation to purposes other than
power approaching $20,000,000 would be required to bring the
power cost at Curecanti to the 7.3 mill rate which the Bureau
stated is the cost of steam power to meet the same market as the.
hydro plants of the Colorado River Storage Project.

Since the active storage capacity of 765,000 acre feet would
actually furnish only seasonal regulation, it is not certain
that the Bureau of the Budget would approve any allocation to
river regulation. If, however, a maximum allocation to river
regulation could be established, additional allocations to
other purposes, either non-reimbursable or with. such a repayment
potential that they might represent a greater worth per acre
foot of capacity, could possibly be included if found to be in
the interest of feasibility.

I