Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />BLACK CANYON INFORMATION PAl'F,R <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Oct, 2000 <br /> <br />Having used the directflow up to its maximum, the lower basin States were at that time very <br />anxious to obtain congressional authorization for a storage structure which would permit the <br />storage of flood flows in the wet years for later use in dry years, thus permitting greater uses in <br />the lower basin. The efforts of the lower basi", to obtain authorization of such a structure were <br />resisted bitterly by the upper basin States on the grounds that, if that structure were built and <br />those waters were stored you would thereby encourage even more rapid growth in the lower <br />basin, and you would preclude any future development of the upper basin States, <br /> <br />California, and Arizona, too, in order to achieve their goal of securing storage in the lower <br />basin to assist in the development of the lower basin, were quite willing to sit down and negotiate <br />a compact which would give reasonable assurances to the upper basin that they would not be <br />, forever precluded from use of an equitable .shure of the water of the stream. As a result, we have <br />the Colorado River compact. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Testimony ofMr, Larson. p, 286, responding to a question regarding the two phases ofthl: <br />Curecanti storage unit: In the original plan submitted in House Document 364 we included what <br />is known as the large Curecanti Reservoir, with a capacity of 2 % million acre-feet, as a unit of <br />the Colorado storage project, mostly for regulation of the Gunnison River, as a part of ihe entire <br />Colorado River regulatory system, ' <br /> <br />Since that time, at the request of the State oj Colorado and by the action of thtiHouse and <br />Senate committees, this capacity has been reduced to 940,000 acre-feet, After the hearings a <br />year ago, we studied a modified plan to work out a hetter development for utilizing the <br />powerhead and storage possibilities on the Gunnison River with a smaller Curecanti Reservoir, <br />The purpose of our report on the modified plan is to inform you of what we found out in our <br />reconnaissance investigation. Page 2 of the report included in my statement gives our estimated <br />reconnaissance construction costs, and it shows that by building the small Curecanti with the <br />capacity of 940,000 acre-feet and 3 power dains below Curecanti, that the entire development <br />can be worked out with a power-generation mst mentioned on page 3, namely, the average cost <br />of 6 % mills per kilowatt-hour, which is less than alternative steam power costs given in the table <br />on page 3 as 8.3 mills per kilowatt-hour, <br /> <br />Information from House Document No, 364, 83d Congress, 2d Session2 <br />Colorado River Storage Proiect. Letter from ..-I-ssistant Secretary of the Interior transmitting a <br />Report on the Colorado River Storage Proie,:!, and participating oroiects, providing for the <br />develooment and utilization of the water and related resources of the Upper Colorado River _ <br />Basin, pursuant to the federal reclamation lav~ April 6, 1954, <br /> <br />Statement by the President included at page 1 supporting the Secretary of the Interior's <br />recommendations, The Secretary ofthe Interior recommended the development on the Gunnison <br />River. <br /> <br />B-3 <br /> <br />2 Also found in Vol. I ofLecislative Actions Colorado River Storage Proiect. <br /> <br />nf'\n"'! .......... <br />