WSP03088 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DEPARTW"1'E 9;..- at') C': C"'; ,- '. - City, NV December 15, 1983 ~For Immediate Re1e,a,se ("i~!\ I i:Z. '~ o (ot . {'vfO' vi p~ #:. &~j\ frvi Iff The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing - (602) 261-3106 (602) 261-3107 RECLAMATION SELECTS MODIFIED ROOSEVELT DAM FOR PLAN 6 to modify the existing Roosevelt Dam as part of Plan 6, according to Bill Plummer, Director of Reclamation's Lower Colorado Region. The proposal will be contained in the final Environmental Impact Statement on the Regulatory Storage Division of the Central Arizona Project, he added. The document is scheduled to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency in February. Plan 6 is the Bureau's proposed action for providing regulatory storage for CAP water, and flood control for the Phoenix area. The plan is the result of nearly 5 years of intensive study and public involvement effort conducted after Orme Dam, originally authorized as part of the CAP, met with strong opposition from some sectors of the public. As proposed, Plan 6 included either a new or modified Roosevelt Dam, New Waddell Dam on the Agua Fria River and Cliff Dam on the Verde River, and reconstruction work on Stewart Mountain Dam on the Salt River. "It was difficult to decide between the modification or new alternative," Plummer said. "We did an extensive analysis of 11 factors identified as being the most relevant for comparing between the two options. "The Salt River Project, which operates and maintains the dam, performed an independent analysis of these same factors. Additionally, two private consultants evaluated the technical adequacy and cost estimates of the Bureau's designs. "In the Bureau's evaluations, the three most significant factors -- technical feasibility, cost, and legislative requirements -- indicated that neither alternative had a clear-cut advantage over the other. Both are feasible, cost about the same, and required the same legislative actions before being built. "A fourth factor -- public input -- then became a more significant element in the decision. Public input, and the consultant's review, favored modifying the existing structure over building a new one. Concerns expressed by the public and the consultants considered the fact that the dam is a National Historic Landmark, and that unknown problems and perhaps additional costs would be incurred if a new dam was built. -MORE-