Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />- 3 - <br /> <br />Judge Stone +isted the possible participating projects in Colorado on which <br />reports are substantially complete, as follows: Little Snake, Paonia, Smith Fork, <br />Silt, Pine River Ex~ension, La Pla~a, Florida and Dolores. <br /> <br />In response ~o a question Mr. Larson stated that of the total cost of <br />~J,l60,oOO,000 for the nine regula~ory reservoirs, the cost of Glen Canyon would be <br />8.~"Llt $350,000,000... <br /> <br />Judge Stone qommented thati~ore than one reservoir should be included in the <br />initial authori1\atiqn. Mr. Tipto~ added that the comb:j.nation of Echo Park with the <br />Gi,nnison River rese1!voirs would bfii rational. The power produced by this team of <br />,(',.,gervoirs would no~ be in excess jof 'the demand by the time they' were constrllcted, <br />."J they are strategiically located with respect to power market areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Banniste~ asked wnat the proportional relation would be as between irri- <br />:.~tion and power prd~uction. ' <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenst~in quoted Article XV, Section (c), Article V, and Article IX of <br />the Upper Colorado ijiver Basin Compact, which are pertinent to the relation between <br />:.~gulatory storage ahd consumptive uses. He also stated that all uses, consumptive <br />vX' non-consumptive, y..ould be made under State laws. <br /> <br />JUdge Stone explained that the plan permits the prodllction of power from <br />~, water which hal'l been; allocated to, but is not presently consumed in the Upper Basin. <br />Mr. Tipton added thel comment that such unused water would be going over the power <br />wheels for a long pet10d befo:r.e full development in the Upper Basin was attained. <br />Even then, there will be 7,500,000 acre-feet annually for power production. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />The question vas asked as to whether Echo Park reservoir would be under the <br />authority of the Upp~r Colorado River Commission, and the others underState auth- <br />ority. l~. Breitenstein answered that so long as a reservoir was used for regula- <br />'Lory storage, and no~for other consumptive uses, the authority llould be in the <br />Commission. If at sg,me future time the reservoir capacity should be found neces- <br />sary for consumptive~use purposes, then the authority for its operation would be in <br />the State. <br /> <br />, <br />\ i <br />Mr. Barkley a,ked what qualifications would be necessary to enable a project <br />to participate in power revenues. <br />.'1 <br />, <br />, <br />Mr. Larson retlied that benefits from the project should be greater than its <br />cost, it should perp.tually pay operation, maintenance and replacement, and some- <br />thing on constructio~ according to ability over a period of fifty or sixty years. <br /> <br />Mr. Barkley i~quired whether it would be a matter for decision by each State <br />whether such criteri~ were met. ' lli~. Larson answered the qualifications would be the <br />same for all States ..: <br /> <br />Heplying to a jquestion as to the relation between expected benefits for <br />domestic water and powel' prOduction, Mr. L8rson stated that the power WOuld be pro- <br />duced from water to ~e delivered at Lee Ferry along with water unused in the Upper <br />Basin during the dev~lopment period. The reports on participating projects will <br />take into considerat~on the factors of irrigation, industrial and municipal uses, <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br />q <br />