Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />'... <br /> <br />000309 <br /> <br />here pointed out that authorization and construction of this project are required to <br /> <br /> <br />meet at as early a date as possible the critical need for additional municipal <br /> <br /> <br />water supplies for Grand Junction, Colorado, Colorado does not deem it advisable to <br /> <br />~~opardize t,he chance for earl~T authcriz~ticn of the Collbran Project b~)t including-- <br /> <br />,,', in the initial authorizations list of participating projects under the proposed <br /> <br /> <br />~0m~~ehensive, basin-.vide plan. The construction and operation of this relatively <br /> <br /> <br />sm~ll project ~~ll not adversely affect any integrated plan of development in the <br /> <br /> <br />tIpper Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br /> <br />8. Colorado opposes the unconditional authorization of the Glen Canyon <br /> <br /> <br />unit of the Colorado River Storage Project. This unit Will provide large and im- <br /> <br /> <br />;~l~~nt benefits to the Lower Basin through silt retention and increasing the amount <br /> <br /> <br />0f ~ower generated at Hoover Dam for the benefit of the Lower Basin of the Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />~ver. Unless an inter-basin understanding is had, such project would cause the <br /> <br />U?'per Basin to be charged with large evaporation losses for benefits accruing to the <br /> <br />~owe~ Basin. Accordingly, the Glen Canyon project poses important questions for <br /> <br /> <br />ad~ustment between the Upper and Lower Basins. Colorado believes that the authori- <br /> <br /> <br />~~tion of this unit, with an estimated cost of $347,000,000 and vnth a proposed <br /> <br /> <br />stcrage of 26,000,000 acre-feet of water (almost as large as Lake I~ad) in the <br /> <br /> <br />,~11itial list, might involve such a large cost as to interfere with reasonable <br /> <br /> <br />progress in the construction of Holdover Storage projects higher up in the Basin. <br /> <br /> <br />'~~is State believes that the authorization of the Glen Canyon unit should be ,delayed <br /> <br /> <br />'~0 afford an opportunity to make the adjustments, above-mentioned, between the two <br /> <br /> <br />basins. However, Colorado will abide by the action taken at a joint meeting of the <br /> <br /> <br />Upper Colorado River Commission and of the Colorado River Basin States Committee, <br /> <br /> <br />held at Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 30, 1949, and approve the inclusion of Glen <br /> <br /> <br />C~r.yon in the initial authorizations, subject, however, to the resolution by Con- <br /> <br /> <br />,:",;,o',i.o.1a1. action or interstate negotiatioqs of the questions of benefits and detri- <br /> <br /> <br />):"''1ts involving silt reter.t.ion, evaporation losses, hydroelectric energy factors, <br /> <br />:'"'\~i Co.st aJ.lncations. <br /> <br />-5- <br />