My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04513
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04513
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:55:48 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:24:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.114.O
Description
Dolores Participating Project
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
8/28/1985
Title
CWCB Board Memo: Agenda Item 4 September 6 1985 Board Meeting--Director's Report
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.
/
6
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 />. <br /> <br />Senator Dan Noble <br />August 29, 1985 <br />Page three <br /> <br />minimum amount of terminal storage needed by the Town of <br />Dove Creek in order to handle its allocation of Dolores <br />project water. <br /> <br />With respect to the first option, I indicated that while I <br />would be willing to approach the Bureau one more time, I did not <br />think that there was any realistic chance of persuading the <br />Bureau to a different point of view. Having addressed this kind <br />of problem with many other projects, I know that the <br />methodologies and assumptions which the Bureau must employ when <br />it. does its economic analyses will make it impossible to achieve <br />a benefit/cost ratio of 1 or greater in this instance. <br />Furthermore, while the deletion of the Dawson Draw Reservoir from <br />the Dolores project, as originally proposed when this issue first <br />arose, might shift larger amounts of fish and wildlife and <br />recreational benefits to the proposed Monument Creek Reservoir, I <br />am confident that ~his would not be enough of a change in the <br />economic analysis to substantially alter the results. <br />Furthermore, any proposal to delete the Dawson Draw Reservoir <br />will most likely engender substantial opposition from local <br />environmental and sportsmen interests and from other federal <br />agencies. <br /> <br />With respect to the second option, the main point I made at <br />the meeting was that there are substantial unresolved questions <br />about the viability of the proposed Monument Creek Reservoir, <br />including the availability of a sufficient water supply, water <br />quality consideration, if there is not sufficient turnover in the <br />water stored in the reservoir, unknown geologic conditions and <br />financial feasibility. Therefore, if the District and local <br />interests wish to proceed with this possibility even in the <br />absence of funding from the Bureau, I have concluded that it will <br />be necessary to prepare a feasibility. study. The issue thus <br />becomes whether the District and local interests are willing to <br />risk the costs of a feasibility study, the results of which might <br />be negative. <br /> <br />If the District and local interests wish to proceed with <br />option 2, it was suggested that all of the town's alternatives be <br />studied, including alternatives serving only the purpose of <br />handling the town's project water allocation. I roughly estimate <br />that such a study would cost about $100,000. I offered to <br />consider paying for this study in one of two different ways: <br /> <br />1. Treat the study as a pre-project authorization study, <br />under which circumstances state statutes require that <br />local interests pay a portion of the cost of the study <br />at the time it is done, this typically being 50 percent <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.