My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03251
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03251
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:49:26 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:37:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.100.30
Description
CRSP
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
3/11/1964
Author
CWCB
Title
March 1964 CWCB Board Memo RE: CRSP
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />215 state Services Building <br />1525 Sherman street <br />Denver, ColoradO 80203 <br /> <br />March 2, 1964 <br /> <br />M E M 0 RAN D g M <br /> <br />TO: Members, Colorado Water Conservation Board and Colorado <br />Water Investigation Commission. <br /> <br />FROM: Felix L. Sparks, Director. <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Agenda Item #5, PrioritySchedule.- Colorado River <br />Storage Project, Board Meeting March 11, 1964. <br /> <br />This communication contains the recommendations of the <br />staff concerning priorities of feasibility investigations for <br />projects in the Colorado River Basin in Colorado under the author- <br />ity of the Colorado River Storage project Act (Public Law 485). <br />In each case we have used the latest information available on the <br />various projects. It should be emphasized, however, that the <br />available information is of reconnaissance stature only. Consid- <br />erable changes could take place in the project plans, costs and <br />benefit-cost ratios, as a result of economic feasibility studies. <br />We also wish to point out that the reconnaissance investigations <br />vary considerably as to time of study, as to the computation of <br />nonreimbursable items, and as to computing benefit-cost ratios. <br />No truly accurate comparison of the various projects can therefore <br />be made at this time. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />We have tried to be wholly objective in our various <br />analyses and comparisons. In the first four priorities that we <br />have recommended, there are no clearly salient facts which demon- <br />strate a convincing priority of one project over the other. Con- <br />sideration was given to equitable treatment among the river basins <br />concerned, namely: the Upper Colorado River area and the Yampa <br />River area; and considerable weight was given to the recommendations <br />of the Colorado River Water Conservation District Board. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />It is our belief that the completion of the projects <br />herein listed will substantially complete the irrigation develop- <br />ment of the Colorado River Basin of the State of Colorado. We <br />feel that in the future increased attention must be given to plan- <br />ning additional municipal and industrial water supplies for that <br />area. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.