Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' 00 (] 2 5 4 <br /> <br />j"; <br /> <br />the original estimated cost of the project feature here men- <br />tioned, but the cost of maintenance and operation will 'ce <br />greatly reduced and the hazard of outages in power plants <br />served by such conveyance of water will be largely eliminated-- <br />thus further serving the ends of inc~eased power production. <br /> <br />6. Governor r.:iller's statements regarding the Colorado-Big <br />Thompson project give the impression to the average reader <br />that the increased costs cannot be repaid by the revenues <br />from irrigation and pOI'rer but will be a burden on the tax- <br />payers of the Nation. This is not the case. Recent care- <br />ful studies qy Bureau and Colorado engineers indicate that <br />the larger amount of firm power produced by t he improved <br />project, together with the irrigation revenues, will still <br />payoff the full construction cost of the project. It will <br />take a Slightly longer period and the power rates may be <br />slightly increased but the project will still be repayable <br />under the provisions of the Federal reclamation law. <br /> <br />7. In regard to the increased costs of the project over the <br />original estimates, the conditions that prevailed in the <br />middle 1930' s should be remembered. One of the motives <br />in conceiving the project at that particular time was to <br />find worth while work for unemployed labor. Labor, mater- <br />ials and supplies were "surplus" and begging to be used. <br />Prices and costs of all kinds were at a low ebb and there <br />was no indication of any change in the economic picture. <br />After the project was first conceived there was a united <br />effort on the part of the local sponsors, the Bureau of <br />Reclamation, the State of Colorado, and the Congress to <br />complete the plans and get the work under vray as soon as <br />possible. In the light of present methods of project in- <br />vestigation it n01'r seems true that if more time and study <br />had been available in preparing the original report some <br />minor errors could have been avoided, but taken as a whole <br />the report outlined a project which, with some improvement <br />and further stUdy, is still feasible and sound. Hmyever, <br />after a lapse of twelve years covering a revolutionary <br />change in economic conditions, it seems unfair to criticize <br />the Bureau for failure to foresee all the changes in power <br />needs and in construction costs that are largely respon- <br />sible for the increased costs. <br /> <br />- 3 - <br />