Laserfiche WebLink
<br />tlU'l <br /> <br />UNITED STATES <br />DEPART~ffiNT OF THE INTERIOR <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br />Reaion 4 <br />P. O.~Box 360 <br />Salt Lake City 10, Utah <br />October 29, 1957 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Ivan C. Crawford, Director <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Colorado State Office Building, <br />Denver, Colorado <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Crawford: <br /> <br />During the September 30, 1957, meeting of the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board, Commissioner W. A. <br />Dexheimer and I promised to submit to you a brief analysis <br />of the remaining work to be done in completing the feasi- <br />bility report required by Public Law 485 before construction <br />funds can be requested for the Curecanti Unit of the Colo- <br />rado River Storage Project. It is Our understanding that <br />your Board desires this analysis in considering the possible <br />transfer of State funds to the Bureau of Reclamation for the <br />purpose of expediting this report. <br /> <br />Our F. Y. 1958 allotment of funds in the amount of <br />~69,000 for expenditure on the Curecanti Unit will be ex- <br />hausted shortly after January 1, 1958, and there is certain <br />work which, if undertaken prior to the availability of F. Y. <br />1959 funds, would expedite the report. After a careful re- <br />view of our program, we have concluded that an -additional <br />$35,000 would allow additional field work in F. Y. 1958 which <br />would advance the work in the Chief Engineer's office and, <br />with liberal appropriations in F. Y. 1959, advance the com- <br />pletion of the report to January or February, 1959 instead <br />of June 1959 shown in our present program. <br /> <br />Selection of a most feasible and economic plan for <br />the Curecanti Unit requires consideration of alternative <br />systems, each involving different types of dams at possible <br />sites numbering up to four in some plans and as low as two <br />in other plans under consideration. The lack of time and <br />funds limits us to the use of preliminary field data, designs, <br />and estimates in comparing these alternatives. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Our ~fforts up to this time have been largely sur- <br />veys and assembly of data in the field, preparation of com- <br />parative estimates in the Chief Engineer's Office. and pre- <br />paration of material for the feasibility report. We are now <br />