My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00164
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00164
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:13:02 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:33:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8141
Description
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
7/11/1961
Author
Mr Aspinall
Title
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Colorado
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 />,-- - <br /> <br />081';:, <br />24 FRYINGPAN'ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO <br /> <br />whatsoever. Either of these facilities would furnish regulation of <br />replncement "...ater for t.he Colorndo River Basin uses. The water <br />supply aspect.s ?f the project are llnch.nr~ged: The hydl'opow~r <br />generat,ioIl remoll1s unchanged and the IrngutlOn benefit.s remmn <br />uncl1i1ntred. It is remfil'knble that the same Bureau witnesses who <br />nppefire~l in prior yefll'S and stat.ed tha~ it was impossible t.o bring <br />this project within the existing recltmwtlOll law no\\' state tbflt, by a <br />mere shifting of a few figures and a slight increflse in t.he cost of energy <br />to preference and non preference customers, which heretofore t.he <br />sam.e wit.nesses said could not, he justified, the project is feflsible. <br />The project is of questionable engi11eering feasibility, is financially <br />unsound and lacks ecoIlOlnie justification. <br />(a-) The excessive cost of the trunsmountain diversion feuture of <br />the proposed project-$63 million to develop ll.n annual supply of <br />69,000 acre-feet of water for irrigution and municipal use-is unwar- <br />ranted and without ecollonlic justification. <br />Tue cost to the Federal Government, would be about $23 per acre- <br />foot or 4.5 times t,he estimated project revenue for irrigation water. <br />The supply for irrigat.ion furnished by the transmount.nin diversion <br />would be only about. 2 inches or one-sixth of an acre-foot per acre. <br />The ],lTge cost of such a smllll supply would fer outweight its value. <br />(b) The $62.7 million power development felltures of the project fire <br />of highly questionable linnncial feasibilit,y. The cost of power from <br />live of [,he se"en plents would be materially greater thnn tue assumed <br />price of 0.5 mills per kilowlLt.t-bour. The estilnat.ed power output find <br />power revenues frOln the plallts are unsupported and appear eXllg- <br />~erated. FurtherInore, there is no assurUllc.e t.hnt the power could <br />be solt! at the required rl1tc of 0.5 Inills or more per kilowatt-hour over <br />t,he protracted repayment period of about 50 yeers, cousidering th8 <br />a'"llilnbility of other competing sources of power and possible <br />obsoleseence of hydroplants, <br />(c) There is grave doubt ns to the engineering fensibility of th8 <br />Arkansas power Cfilllll-olle of the finjor features of the proposed <br />hydroeleetric development. The project plnns propose to construct <br />and operat.e t.his unit. lIS all open callal (uetually n series of open callaIs <br />aggregating 60 miles in h~ngth) t,o COIl'.CY W!ltcr to fi series of 6 power- <br />plants between the vicinity of Lellch'ille llnd Salidn, located along the <br />cflllyon of the Arkullsns Ri,rer at clevntions of over 7,000 to nearly <br />]0,000 feet above sea level in a. rugged mOlllltin regi~Hl where, for <br />severl1l months of the \",'inter, severe ice and snow conditions prevail. <br />The practicnhi\it.y of operating nn open cannl under such conditions <br />is highly questiolln.blc. Under silnilnr conditions 011 the Colorn.do- <br />Birr Thompson project in Colorado a few miles to the north, the Burea.u <br />oflteclamation found it necessary to substitute tunnels and covered <br />conduits for the open cluhl.ls originally proposed. This change in pllllls <br />hns been stated to be one of the major reasons why the construction <br />cost of thllt project to date hns nenrly qnadruplcd over the estimates <br />Offl'rc(1 to Congress. . . <br />The former Secretary of the Interior hns reported th!!t if covered <br />conduits tlrc found to be required, t.he totitl construction cost of the <br />Fr-,,'in~pi.l.n-Arkansas project would be increased nbout $64 million <br />find t,hat sueh an incrcHse would render tlte project infeasible. An <br />additional cost of $64 million for the power development would raise <br />the total project cost to $2:34 million or more-an inerease.of llbout <br />40 pe~c.ent over the Bureau's estimitte. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.