My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01660
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01660
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:32:08 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:36:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8221.110.A
Description
Juniper-Cross Mountain Project
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
6/25/1963
Title
Statement on Juniper Project for Presentation to the Colorado Water Conservation Board--June 25 1963 at Craig 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.
/
27
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 />.-t <br />to <br />.n <br />- <br />c. <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />in the Maybell-Sunbeam area and a portion of the Ian;} 1 r; lice <br /> <br />proposed ~Tuniper ,Reservoir site. A powerplant of 32,00" kilo- <br /> <br />watts installed capacity generating 120,000,000 kill",'," 1-: ,":rs <br /> <br />annually would be included as well as the irrigaj'i Oil ,,; the remain- <br /> <br />ing 91,000 acres in the san~ project area as described for the <br /> <br />large Juniper Project. The Deadman Bench canal would divert <br /> <br />from the Cross Mountain Dam at the same elevation and alignment <br /> <br />as in the large Juniper Project plan. <br /> <br />Recreation development at Cross Mountain similar to that planned <br /> <br />4-7 <br /> <br />for the Juniper Reservoir would be included as well as the develop- <br /> <br />ment of additional fish and wildlife activity. The Cross Mountain <br /> <br />gorge and part of the Yampa River are seen here looking upstream. <br /> <br />The Cross Mountain Reservoir plan would have a favorable benefit- <br /> <br />cost ratio based on the total benefits, but would be slightly less <br /> <br />than 1 to 1 if the direct irrigation benefits only were included. <br /> <br />The Cross Mountain Reservoir plan does not appe~r t ,', '.; <br /> <br />justified primarily hecause it would flood out the P"v"',: "lid <br /> <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.