Laserfiche WebLink
<br />in ev,lluating nct c'ontribution to the evaporation losses which in <br />i'ny IJ-year pGriod would tot1'-l nec.rly onc-he.lf of thG e.vaile.blc act- <br />ive Clp2City. <br /> <br />The justifie.blG allocat ion of lilrge Curccanti costs to irrigo.- <br />tion ~nder present evaluiltion criteria c:mnot bo ddermined P.t this <br />time, howev~r, if procedures simililr to those used in the December <br />1950~olorildo River St"lr3.ge project report are followed, appro xi- <br />lTIc.tely $30,000,000 of the joint costs could be flllocated to irrig2.- <br />tion, This would result in a required sale r?te of 8.4 mills per <br />kibw2.tt-hour, still in excess of the cost of the ste!\lll alt'cmate <br />but W'1en evaluated with thE; assumed salvage credit in an economic <br />nnalysis wCluld result in a benefit-co st ratio of approximately 1.0. <br />Even though both the assumption 1\S to sillvage values and the irrigc,- <br />tion :lllocction are still controversi:ll subjects, it sh::>uld be <br />rLJl1enioered that no claim for p, "hold-over storaee" alloc:ttbn can 'ce <br />supported for the small'reserv0ir plan. <br /> <br />, A review of the data submitted by Mr. Lars0n t:l the Policy pnd <br />rtevicw ComrxLttee--Gunnison River Storage during December 1951 and <br />Jru1uilry 1952 shows that the added potential downstream benefits with <br />e. hrge reservoir at Cureccnti he.ve already bGen outlined. As we.s <br />pointed out in these letters MY reduction in cc.p;'.city from the krgo <br />Curcc~,nti wou ld result in decreased power with comparable incrGas'-'s <br />in unit costs at the Crystal nnd Whitewater. This would alsc apply <br />to potentic.l run-of -river developments such as utilization of the <br />1,OOO-foot power head thr-Jugh the Black Canyon. <br /> <br />2 <br />