|
<br />- .204
<br />
<br />The explanation of the project, in behalf of the Bureau, was presented by
<br />Mr. Ben F. Powell, area engineer of tile Bureau at Pueblo. He explained the
<br />points of diversion and sources of water intended for transmountain diversion,
<br />and outlined the plan of units needed, as well as explaining the p0\7er develop-
<br />ments in the project. His remarks were supplemented by Director Datso~,~of
<br />Region 7.
<br />
<br />The estimates on construction costs were requested by Judge Hughes, and
<br />were submitted for the record as follows by Mr. Powell.
<br />
<br />. Costs and allocations: Total construction cost (1950 report)--$147,440,000
<br />(October 1949 prices). Non-returnable costs, ~17,956,000; flood control,
<br />$15,777,000; fish and wildlife, $2,179,000. Returnable costs, $129,484,000;
<br />power at three per cent, $40,032,000; municipal water at two per cent, $29,522,000;
<br />irrigation, borne by irrigators and district, iilO,881,600; irrigation, borne by
<br />power and other revenues, $49,048,400, which includes li13,570,400 fTom municipal
<br />and industrial revenues. Annual O. M. and R. expense, $1,335,200.
<br />
<br />Source of annual revenue; (1950 report) Irrigation, transmQuntain and
<br />floodwater, 56,700 a.f. at $3.60; Twin Lakes additional water, 12,500 A.f. at $2.
<br />
<br />Municipal water: l:olorado Springs, 2700 a.f. at $39.05 (two per cent for
<br />40 years); Pueblo4Vurtz Ditch Supply, 2000 a.f. at $23.50; Pueblo - project
<br />supply, 3000 a.f. at $41.50; Valley towns on trunk line, 7272 a.f. at ~8.10;
<br />Crowley branch line, 96.a.f. at ~147.50; Eads branch line, 170 a.f. at $255.90;
<br />Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation,- 4000 a.f. at $2; reserve for future demand,
<br />1260 a.f. at $22.60.
<br />
<br />Hydroelectric p0\7er: Investment to be returned at three per cent in 50
<br />years: Firm, 370,000,000 k.w.h.r. at 5.5 mills; secondary, 97,125,000 k.w.h.r.
<br />at 3.5 mills.
<br />
<br />Mr. Eugene Bond of Leadville, a citizen, inquired concerning details of
<br />provisions for recreational values under the project.
<br />
<br />J. R. Riter of the Hydrology Division of the Bureau of Reclamation ex-
<br />plained the proposed operation of the Aspen Reservoir as a replacement reservoir.
<br />
<br />I In response to inquiry by Judge Hughes, the Director explained that the
<br />Water Board, at this time, was acting only on recommendations, proposed by the
<br />Policy and Review Committee, which if approved by the Board, would go to the
<br />Uirector of Region 7 of the Bureau of Reclamation for consideration in the pre-
<br />paration of his report on the proposed first phase of the Gunnison-Arkansas
<br />Project. The Board's approval of the Policy and Review 80mmittee report woUld
<br />not involve such ,details as feasibility of the project, its economics, nor any
<br />considerations of construction or returns, the Director said.
<br />
<br />Judge Dan Hughes made the motion that the report of
<br />the Policy and Review as contained in the Appendix A,
<br />being the letter signed by the 4irector of this Board,
<br />81ifford H. Stone; and the Appendix B, being the text
<br />of the proposed principles of operation for the proposed
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />1
<br />
|