Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />project which would satisfy all of the needs. It would seem to me a. <br />poor precedent to vote down study funds on a project which is not <br />entirely formulated, but one which is in the process of review and <br />change in order to solve the needs of all. Thank you. <br /> <br />MR. FORD: Mr. Chairman, I have to second Mr. Kroeger's statement that we <br />need the funds for the study. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Mr. Fischer, is the opposition thinking that nothing <br />further should be done? <br /> <br />MR. FISCHER: Mr. Jackson, it is unclear. In conversations I've had <br />with some of the leaders of the opposition, they have told me that the <br />intent is to kill that project one way or another. The original <br />opposition to that project was only on the high dam at Placita. Most <br />of the land owners and residents in the Crystal River Valley, as far as <br />we can ,objectively determine, object only to the high dam at Placita. <br />These are the same people who demand a live stream on the Crystal River <br />all year when it already goes dry part of the year. I don't know, <br />Mr. Jackson, how you can supply water to keep a wet river all year with- <br />out storing at some time for later releases. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: What's the alternative? <br /> <br />MR. FISCHER: Direct flow diversion out of the headwaters above Marble, <br />Colorado, is one alternative. Another alternative is pumping out of <br />either the Crystal or Colorado River. The alternative of pumping out <br />of the Colorado River will have to be looked at in great detail. These <br />alternatives are being objectively looked at by the Bureau of Recla- <br />mation. But because the Bureau of Reclamation is suspect as to its <br />engineering and economic objectivity, the West Divide Board is spending <br />its own money on a private consultant of outstanding repute to analyze <br />alternatives also; The alternatives are being looked at. There are <br />many potential alternatives, Mr. Chairman. We don't know what the <br />final answer is yet. It's going to take a little more time to continue <br />these studies. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Sparks, will the $230,000 be utilized for this <br />balancing of various plans, or will it be utilized to formulate a plan <br />one of the alternatives? I'm sort of unclear as to what the funding <br />would be. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: One of the principal purposes is to review all the alter- <br />natives and to finally select a plan. That's the problem. Without <br />the money, we can't get into these alternative plans. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: On that basis, we've had the West Divide project up <br />for so many years, I think.we ought to go ahead -- at least to this <br />e~tent,-- I would say if we haven't got it resolved by next year, that <br />this board certainly might take a different attitude about it. For <br />the recommendation for any further funds, I take it that we're in a <br />box. We better go along further to see whether we can make a viable <br />project that will satisfy the various interests. <br /> <br />-15- <br />