Laserfiche WebLink
<br />36 <br /> <br />day of Apr11, 1950." That date 18 wrong; I think it was the <br />26th day. "The director participated in this hearing. <br />-Among other th1ngs, the Estes Park citizens urged that <br />overhead transmission 11nes were unsightly, destroyed the <br />scenic beauty, and tended to destroy recreat1ona1 advantages <br />in the area. 'fhey also oontended that such lines are a threat <br />to 11fe and property. They requested that the plans for such <br />transmiss10n 11nes be changed so as to place the lines under- <br />ground. <br />"The Bureau of Reclamation invest1gated the costs of <br />Buch a ohange and found that it would involve an addit10nal <br />cost of approximately $800,000. In add1tion, 1t was explained <br />by the ];ureau that Buoh change would necese1tate canoe1lation <br />of contracts with contractors who are now engaged 1n construct- <br />1ng the l1nes. Such a cancellat10n would involve further <br />costs. <br /> <br />"At the hearing held in Estes Park, the Northern 0010- <br />rado Water Conservanoy D1strict, the State R. .. A. organ1za- <br />tion, and a nUlllber of R. E. A. cooperatives which w111 be <br />served with power from the Co1orado-B1g Thompson projeot, <br />. opposed the l"equest of the Estes Pal"k people. It was pointed <br />out by them that an 1ncreased cost whioh m1ght reach $1,000.000 <br />woulli place an unnecessary and lnol"eased burden on the water <br />and power users under the project. It was also expla1ned that <br /> <br />the authorizat1o~ by Oongress of the construct1on of the 11nes, <br />