BOARD01227 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

171 it in the initial authorizations list of participating projects under the proposed comprehensive, basin-wide plan. The construc- tion and operation of this relatively small project will not ad- versely affect any inteerated plan of development in the Upper Colorado River Basin. ] 8. Colorado opposes the unconditional authorization of the Glen Canyon unit of the Colorado River Stor<i1ge Froject. This unit ,'fill provide large and important benefits to the Lower Basin through silt retention and increasing the amount of power generated at Hoover U9.m for the benefit of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River. Unless an inter-basin understanding is had, such project would cause the Upper Basin to be charged with large evaporat:i-on losses for benefits accruing to the Lower Basin. Accordingly, the Glen Canyon project poses important questions for adjustment between t he Upper and Lower Basins. Colorado believes that the authorization of this unit, with an estimated cost of $347,000,000 and with a proposed storage of 26,000,000 acre-feet of water (almost as large as Lake Mead) in the initial list, might involve such a large cost as to interfere with reasonable progress in the construction of Holdover Storage projects higher up in the Basin. This State believes that the authorization of the Glen Canyon unit should be delayed to afford an opportunity to make the adjustments, above-mentioned, between .the two basins. However, Colorado will abide by the action taken at a joint meet- ing of the Upper Colorado River Commission and of the Colo;rado River Basin States Committee, held at Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 30, 1949, and approve the inclusion of Glen Canyon in the initial author- izations, subject, hmvever, to the resolution by Congressional action or interstate negotiations of the questions of benefits and detri- ments involving silt retention, evaporation losses, hydro-electric energy factors, and cost allocations. 9. The proposed Echo Fark Dam and Reservoir and Split Mountain Dam and Reservoir, included in the list of Holdover Reservoirs on page 12 of the report, are located within the Dinosaur National Monument which heretofore has been established by a Presidential proclamation. The construction of these two uni ts of Holdover Storage is contingent upon the removal of re- strictions against utilization of the area for storage of water, or the adjustment of boundary lines of such National Monument 'so as to permit such stor<i1ge. It is known that at the present time the scenic and recreational areas of the Dinosaur National Monu- ment, which would be inundated by these reservoirs, are inaccessible to the public. The use of this area for reservoir storage is essential for carrying out the plan for Holdover :Storage in the Upper Calo- rado River Basin, recommended by the Bureau of Reclamation and approved by the States of the Upper Basin, and such storage would enhance and make accessible the scenic and recreational values in the area. Also it should be noted that the opportunities for the State of Utah to utilize its full share of apportioned Colorado River water, under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, are. dependent upon the construction of these Iieservoirs. For these reasons, Colorado joins with the other four States of the Upper Colorado River Basin in urging the Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service to approve the adjustments necessary to permit the construction of these two units of Holdover Storage. ]