My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01700
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01700
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:05:59 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:01:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/22/1961
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.
/
36
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 />200b <br /> <br />both internally within the conservancy district <br />and between the district and the Arkansas <br />Valley interests and the State of Kansas and <br />the agreement for the transfer of the Model <br />storage rights are probably moving ahead about <br />as rapidly as we anticipated but not as rapidly I <br />as we had hoped they would. There has been <br />quite a bit of discussion concerning certain <br />points in the proposed operation for the proj- <br />ect. At the present time, as far as I know, <br />everyone is in agreement and that is, with the <br />plan as proposed. There are certain details <br />which they will have to work out. <br /> <br />On the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, our <br />statement pretty well covers that. The effects <br />of the proposals for the recommended stream <br />flows in the Arkansas River, which were recom- <br />mended by the Fish and wildlife study or <br />Wildlife group, we have been analyzing those <br />to determine what effect they would have on <br />the potential power production for the project <br />and that study. should be completed - the <br />mechanics of it - within the next thirty days <br />and should be finalized and our report ready <br />by the end of the year. <br /> <br />On the Narrows Unit we have submitted our <br />report on the selection of a site for the main <br />stem storage in the lower reach of the river. <br />That has been distributed, I think, to members <br />of the steering committee. Briefly, what we <br />have found with the studies that we have made <br />is that the recommendation which we made ori- <br />ginally for the Narrows Reservoir site still <br />is the best solution for our problem from an <br />economic standpoint. The cost and the rela- <br />tionship between benefit and cost is much <br />better for the Narrows site than for the Weld <br />County or what we originally called the Hardin <br />site. In this connection we should bear in <br />mind that the Narrows Unit is an authorized <br />unit of the Missouri Basin and if we stick with <br />the selection of that site, or with the utili- <br />zation of that site, then it should be possible <br />for us to move ahead with construction of that <br />unit just as rapidly as we can coordinate the <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.