My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02516
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02516
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:16:44 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:16:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/12/1958
Description
Minutes
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.
/
77
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 />.lZ.lO <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. NELSON: <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />"The only natural reservoir site of <br />any size on the Roaring Fork is the basin <br />just above the town of Aspen, the Aspen <br />Reservoir. When you get above that site, <br />the river drops off'very rapidly which means, <br />to get any storage, you have to go very high <br />with your dam. That whole valley is heavily <br />overlain with glacial deposits. It is almost <br />impossible to find what we call bedrock in <br />that valley. You can drill for several <br />hundred feet and still not find it, which <br />means, then, that you have a very expensive <br />base. The reservoir can be built on the sand <br />base that exists there but you will have some <br />leakage. If you build a small reservoir and <br />only a small reservoir is possible anywhere <br />above Aspen, then your leakage under the dam <br />may be so great that you don't accomplish <br />much holdover storage. <br /> <br />You could figure the Aspen Reservoir <br />itself would leak through the sand below but <br />it would not be a significant amount if you <br />had a 28,000 foot reservoir. When you get <br />down to 10,000 feet or less then that leakage <br />becomes very significant." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"I would like to ask another question. <br />Has the controversial Ruedi site been checked?" <br /> <br />"The Ruedi reservoir site has been <br />thoroughly gone over before. It was one of the <br />original plans of the Bureau of Reclamation. <br />There again the reservoir site itself is quite <br />feasible, that is, the dam site. But there is <br />a chalk or limestone formation on one of the <br />abutments which is a dangerous type of forma- <br />.tion. If that limestone formation extends any- <br />where through the dam site itself, eventually <br />your whole dam will go out - leak out. There <br />is quite an extensive chalk deposit there. <br /> <br />Now that site has not been ruled out I <br />entirely as yet. We are looking, at the <br />present time, for sites which present no . <br />great problem on the face of it. We may have <br />to go back and take another look at the Ruedi <br />site. The top engineers from the Bureau who <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.