My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02203
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02203
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:13:27 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:12:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/20/1975
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, 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.
/
76
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 />from the Yampa River. <br /> <br />The Juniper part of the project, the last figure I saw from the Bureau <br />indicated probably a hundred thousand acre-feet available for use. <br />Perhaps Mr. Crandall can speak to that. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Mr. Crandall, would you come up here, please? <br /> <br />~. - <br />Mr. -Crandall: Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, Mr. Pughe has outlined some of <br />the development possibilities. I think our present position is that <br />the Western Colorado resources study is looking at the best combination <br />of development opportunities within that general geographic area, and <br />its needs, as.they are becoming better identified. <br /> <br />It is my view that it would not be timely to talk about specific facil- <br />ities and specific sites, as that plan might be formulated. There are <br />$200,000 in the proposed '76 budget which would permit us to start that <br />program; and there are $95,000, as I recall, in the transitional quarter. <br />So, we are starting an in-depth feasibility comprehensive study. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Mr. Crandall, would you elaborate just a little on this <br />pncorgy study, concentrating both heavily on the White River and Yampa, <br />when we are talking about thp. 'White, Yellow Jacket Project, and the <br />Yamp"', ",11'l0? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Crandall: Yes, sir, and including the development requirements on <br />the White, both for Indian needs and proto-type oil shale in both states. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Now, can you project for us the policy of the Bureau in <br />regard to the use of the water for energy sources, is it always reused <br />again, and is it polluted? <br /> <br />Mr. Crandall: Mr. Chairman, in answering your question I would refer, <br />perhaps, to what has been happening in the past with respect to indus- <br />trial water commitments. The basic objective is to obtain maximum use, <br />and then not let the highly polluted residuals go back into the stream. <br />The plans for all the power plants in New Mexico have that built in <br />as a commitment. <br /> <br />Mr. Sherman: Has the conservancy district done an analysis of what the <br />irrigation needs are in the area? <br /> <br />Mr. Crandall: Over the years, Mr. Sherman, there has been a lot of <br />investigation and a lot of attention given to the agricultural water I <br />requirement in Northwestern Colorado. We feel we have done that very <br />adoquate1y and this investigation would not need to address itself very <br />much to agricultural water requirements. The land needs have been <br />identified. <br /> <br />Mr. Pughe: I might cOIlllllE!nt, Mr. Sherman, the Juniper Project would have <br />taken water over the Elk Springs Divide down into the South Vernal, Utah <br />area where tremendous amounts of land would be irrigated in Utah. <br />Apparently the present posture is that Utah does not want to utilize its <br /> <br />-32- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.