Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Concerning the Grand Mesa Project, a "Concluding Report" has been <br />submitted, but it is probably mistitled. The Colorado River Storage <br />Project Act of April 11, 1956 directed that a Feasibility Study be made <br />of the Grand Mesa Project, which named the project as 1 of 25 potential <br />participating projects to be given priority in the completion of planning <br />reports. A report titled "Concluding Report" is hardly a Feasibility <br />Report. Further, the so-called "Concluding Report" found the Grand Mesa <br />Project to have a very respectable benefit-cost ratio of 1.37:1, using <br />a 5 1/2% "interest rate." We request that the Colorado Water Conserva- <br />tion Board support an updating of the Grand Mesa Report (r.erhaps with <br />an addendwn) and a change in title to "Feasibility Report' and that the <br />report be sent to the Congress for its consideration for authorization. <br /> <br />The River District has received an unanimous-joint resolution from the <br />North Fork and the Grand Mesa Water Conservancy Districts setting forth <br />the anticipated increase in population and requirement for municipal, <br />industrial (coal development), agricultural and recreation water and <br />requesting the resumption of Bureau studies. The Colorado Water Con- <br />servation Board has received the same resolution. We ask the support <br />of the Colorado Water Conservation Board that the Congress be requested <br />to instruct the Bureau of Reclamation to resume work on the Grand Mesa <br />Project in fiscal year 1976. <br /> <br />Water for energy is currently of great importance. Waters of several <br />of the above projects (Dallas Creek Dominguez, West Divide Yellow <br />Jacket, plus the Grand Mesa Projecd either do have or can have water <br />for energy (thermal, hydro or oil shale) included in their plans. How- <br />ever, agricultural water is just as important to Colorado and they all <br />include irrigation water. The Savery-Pot Hook Project is essentially <br />an all irrigation project and we urge the Board's continued full and <br />aggressive support of it. <br /> <br />There are other projects which the River District requests the State <br />Board to support, but we do not assign specific amounts of money at this <br />time. We are told that the Bureau of Reclamation believes that it does <br />not have sufficient personnel with the specific skills required to do <br />the quality work which is necessary on these projects but that work can <br />be resumed in the relatively near future. <br /> <br />There are several projects for which the Bureau of Reclamation is <br />essentially ready to begin either feasibility studies or to review <br />previous studies, using multi-objective planning under the Water <br />Resources Planning Act (PL 89-80). The Bureau could start work on these <br />projects some time in fiscal year 1977 or immediately thereafter and <br />the District requests the Board's support in requesting the Bureau re- <br />initiate work on them as soon as possible. These are: <br /> <br />Basalt Proj~ - A feasibility type study was completed in fiscal year <br />1973. A status report was completed in April 1974 and has not yet been <br />released for distribution by the Commissioner's Office. Essentially no <br />work has been done since April 1974. <br /> <br />Upper Gunnison Pro~ - A Concluding Report was written but the report <br /> <br />-11- <br />