My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01884
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01884
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:33:14 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:41:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.100.25
Description
CRSP
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
10/1/1949
Author
CWCB
Title
Minutes of Series of State-Wide Meetings Sponsored by the Colorado Water Conservation Board - Discussion on Interim Report of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on CRSP
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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 />-4- <br /> <br />Mr. Larson an Mr. Jex commented that since there was no concrete informa- <br />tion as to the rate;of velopment of oil shale processing, no attempt had been <br />made at coordination of that power source and the ones contemplated in this re- <br />port. " <br /> <br />Mr. Smith exp~essed the opinion that it would seem advisable to build Echo <br />Park in conjunctionrwith Curecanti and Crystal dams. He inquired if the power <br />pool would be;avai14ble to transmountain diversions on the same basis as to irri- <br />gationlprojects wittlin'the basin. <br /> <br />Mr. Riter andjJudge stone stated that such questions are a matter of policy <br />deliberdted arter meetings such as these. <br />. ' <br /> <br />to be <br /> <br />Upon aninquiIl,Y by JUdge Hughes, Mr. Larson described the immediate power <br />market as being the :Wasatch front in Utah and the Grand Junction md Montrose <br />areas in Colorado, ~~d that the demand in 25 or 30 years will be sufficient to <br />absorb all of the poWer contemplated in the Storage Project. <br /> <br />In response to' another question by Judge Hughes as to what provisions had <br />been made with regarp to releases for irrigation from the main stem reservoirs, <br />Mr. Tipton pointed o~t that the irrigation potentialities are located above these <br />main reservoirs except for the proposed Dead Man Bench area; the principal <br />, function of the reservoir is to meet compact obligations at Lee Ferry, and that <br />the production of porer incident to the releases to meet those obligations is com- <br />patible with that function. <br /> <br />Judge Hughes stated that another primary function of the project would be <br />the control ofsilt,Jand asked whether such control would be of benefit solely to <br />the Lower Basin, and!whether all evaporation losses would be chargeable to the <br />Upper Basin. <br /> <br />JUdge ~ reilied that silt retention is primarily a benefit to the Lower <br />Basin, but that evap~ration charges would be against the Upper Basin unless some <br />agreement is reached~between the Basins. <br /> <br />Mr. Tipton add~d that, beyond the benefit from silt retention, an increased <br />power head would reslilt at Hoover Darn. <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenate~ quoted portions of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact <br />regarding regulations and control of water which would be stored in the proposed <br />main starn reser;voirs, and the charges for reservoir losses. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith, Mr.i:.arson and Mr. Riter discussed the possibility that the <br />Wasatch Front power demand might be supplied from Bonneville unless there is <br />rapid completicin on 'tIhe Colorado River of such units as EChO Park. <br /> <br />'___ __'h <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />, <br />I <br /> <br />" <br />, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.