|
<br />C\!
<br />r:-
<br />~
<br />'N
<br />c
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />.......
<br />
<br />.....~:~..
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />'-'
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.~~",~ ~ . "..' ,,'
<br />
<br />. ,.'.. ~.,' -:.' ,.~, - ... '. '..-" ~. ",~..";\'
<br />
<br />. ,- "r"~"""
<br />
<br />, .29.,
<br />
<br />..;}, .
<br />:'tf. .
<br />
<br />1
<br />
<br />increasing the January 1 requirement above 5.35 million
<br />
<br />2 acre ,feet. The, two pla~13 with greater January 1 requ~rements,~::,
<br />
<br />, ,',:" " ' ' .", ", ' " '.,' ' "/'
<br />"~3': ,5,,67 IllUlion.:.a~~~,~f,eetdni,A~t.ernat1ve2 and"." .50"milli.on................ ~"
<br />, '. t ". .
<br />~ '. . .... - -,'
<br />acre feet. in Alt.ernativ 8, result in overall, decreases in
<br />4
<br />
<br />'. " 15
<br />
<br />~.
<br />
<br />5
<br />
<br />. _ '", .. .' 'I!' '.~. t.. '. . - .,"" , ~,' . .... -. ~ , , .' . ," I:"'x.:f"' ~":ft'"
<br />annual 'net benefits of $126,000 and $2,130,000 respectively. "',
<br />
<br />6
<br />
<br />Alternative 2 actually increases flood damages by $2,000 pe~
<br />year, and under Alternative 8 flood damages qecline by oniy
<br />
<br />i '
<br />" .
<br />
<br />"';
<br />
<br />",:\IIt.,
<br />"
<br />"t;r
<br />
<br />7
<br />
<br />8
<br />
<br />$19,000 annually, whereas water and hydropower benefits are'
<br />
<br />.
<br />"
<br />","
<br />
<br />9
<br />
<br />reduced by an average of $2.1 million dollars annually. ' It.
<br />.
<br />
<br />~;
<br />
<br />'"
<br />:i:<:"
<br />
<br />to
<br />
<br />is further interesting to note that plan Number 4, wherein
<br />
<br />,'~
<br />1~~
<br />',~
<br />,,'
<br />,",f'
<br />~'~
<br />" ,~', ...
<br />
<br />II
<br />
<br />the maximum controlled release is limited to 28,000 cfs for
<br />
<br />12
<br />
<br />flood control purposes, results in increased annual flood "
<br />
<br />~,,' :' ,-~,-' ""." ..._,,~..,-~~.;..~,~...:~
<br />damages compared to alternative number 1 of $262,OOO'~ann~aliy; :::,;:
<br />
<br />13
<br />
<br />14
<br />
<br />Also, we see no overwhelming advantages to
<br />
<br />
<br />reducing ,the' January.]. flood ,space' requirement to 4.Smiliion,
<br />
<br />. ._~;;"
<br />
<br />'~'"
<br />
<br />16 acre feet, 'as was done for plans numbers 3, number 6 and'
<br />
<br />,..'-;.~ ":~'-'l.,;,~,.'.":.' '...<~, '.
<br />
<br />....
<br />
<br />':~:1'"~1I ~~
<br />
<br />17 number 7. Although the Lake Mead ending storage benefits
<br />for the study period were slightly higher, overall net
<br />
<br />18
<br />
<br />19
<br />
<br />benefits for these three plans were approximately $100,000. ,'; '. ;"
<br />, '., _" . . '. ,"' .,J , ~" ". I'"
<br />-, . . . _, .'. . (-; 1 . ."
<br />to $150,066 'pe!r'year 'lowerth.an plan number "1. ': ' \
<br />
<br />20
<br />
<br />"
<br />"..~ .
<br />
<br />21
<br />
<br />In summary, Alternatives Number 1 and Number 9
<br />
<br />22
<br />
<br />appear to have major advantages over the other plans for almos
<br />
<br />23,
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />all purposes'arid we urge that they receive maxamum con81derltB: 'if'
<br />. . . "
<br />
<br />24
<br />
<br />, .... . ~,'" ....~,.,' :. ,. "" 1 . -,-,I. 0.: . . :......" . "'~., . .
<br />in 'the selection of a flood control 'regulation pian for .'
<br />
<br />.:
<br />
<br />"'.....,.
<br />',.
<br />
<br />25 Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. And, that concludes my statement.
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />r r:; A llnlln.rtinn
<br />
|