Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />"002373 <br /> <br />- 6 - <br /> <br />the reservoir would be empty at the beginning of the study period, the <br />reduction in the flow of the Rio Grande at Lobatos resulting from the <br />reservoir operation would be increased to 38,300 acre-feet per year. <br />It is questionable whether the reservoir could operate in that fashion for <br />the first few years under the terms of the Compact. It if were so operated, <br />it is certain that on or before the end of the study period the debits would <br />have become prohibitive. On the other hand, if the reservoir were assumed <br />to be empty at the beginning of the study period, and if it were operated <br />in such a manner as not to cause any greater effect on the flow at Lobatos <br />than would be caused by the operation assumed in the Bureau's report, <br />no doubt there would be greater shortages, particularly during the year <br />1931, than those pointed out in the report. <br /> <br />Although the Bureau of Reclamation was not able to determine the <br />manner in which the operation of the reservoir could be coordinated with <br />the use of ground-water storage, as recommended by the State, neverthe- <br />less as a part of the presently proposed project there is provided the <br />installation of a pilot pumping plant in the Mosca-Hooper area. <br /> <br />I will not comment in detail on the economic and financial analysis <br />of the project as made by the Bureau of Reclamation, but will point out <br />that the Bureau found that the average annual water charge would be about <br />$1.37 per acre to repay the cost of the project in a 40-year repayment <br />period with a 5 -year development period, which amount also includes annual <br />operation and maintenance costs. <br /> <br />Conclusions. <br /> <br />It is concluded that the Bureau of Reclamation in its restudy <br />of the Wagon Wheel Gap Project complied as nearly as practicable with the <br />recommendations of the State of Colorado as submitted in its letter of <br />August 12, 1953, and that the 1955 version of the project is far better <br />than the 1953 one. <br /> <br />Recommendations. <br /> <br />It is recommended that the Board request the Bureau of ~: <br />Reclamation to: <br /> <br />, <br />':\..,.' <br />~ ,. <br />" " <br />.,\,'< " <br />\"\ \\ <br />... <br /> <br />, \t <br />-'::,," ." 1. <br />1-\ 11:' <br />, <br />.. i:,j t, 2. <br />"'" <br />~~' <br />., )<\ <br />\ f_'\ . <br /> <br />Restudy the capacity of the outlet works and sluiceways. <br /> <br />Make another reservoir operation study assuming an empty <br />reservoir at the beginning of the study period (1925) and <br />make a re -appraisal of the economics based upon such <br />operation. <br /> <br />, <br />