My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01143
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01143
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:58:33 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:50:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
12/11/1953
Description
Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
43
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 />293 <br /> <br />We of the PAONIA PROJECT have done all we could <br />think of in expediting the program of .the Colorado <br />River Storage Projects and participating projects. <br /> <br />We of the Paonia Project were strong for the <br />large Curecanti Dam for we felt that .it served. <br />three (3) purposes, hold-over water of some <br />2,000,000 acre feet, generating the needed <br />electric energy and to regulate the Gunnison <br />River. ' <br /> <br />However, we have not had any enthusiasm for the <br />bob-tailed Curecanti Reservoir, for it does not <br />provide the needed hold-over nor the regulating <br />of the Gunnison River. Even so, we are not opposing <br />the bob-tailed Curecanti Dam.. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />But, we want the supporters of the bob-tailed Cure- <br />canh Dam to understand the position the PAONIA <br />PROJECT is put in if the bob-tailed Curecanti Darn <br />should be included in the Initial Phase of the Colo- <br />rado River Storage Project and on present appearing <br />HIGH COST OF electric energy. <br /> <br />We of the PAONIA PROJECT would like it understood <br />that we feel that we have already been set back on <br />the construction of the Spring Creek Dam by two <br />years. That is we feel that the opposition to the <br />large Curecanti Dam has set us back by two years, <br />for had there been no opposition to the large Cure- <br />canti Dam, we feel that the Colorado River Storage <br />Project and participating projects Act would have <br />been a reality at least two years ago. Moreover, <br />that in all probability, had there been no ppposi- <br />tion to the large Curecanti Dam, funds would have <br />been appropriated for the construction of the Spri,ng <br />Creek Dam and there would have by this time been <br />considerable construction work on the Spring Creek <br />Dam of the PAONIA PROJECT WI1H POSSIBLY SOME water <br />available to the PAONIA PROJECT late in the season <br />of 1954. <br /> <br />We of the PAONIA PROJECT feel that as the matter now <br />stands, it will likely be three or more years before <br />any, even small quantity, stored water will be avail- <br />able to the users under this project. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />We of the PAONIA PROJECT feel that, aside from the <br />Region 4, Bureau of Reclamation and in the immediate <br />area of the PAONIA PROJECT, little if any, other than <br />casual knowledge or information is possessed. That <br />such being the case, it is but natural that little, <br />if any, attention be directed to our situation. We <br />fully appreciate your position in this instance, that <br />it is not possible for you to have any appreciable in- <br />formation relative to our situation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.