My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05349
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05349
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:58 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:58:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.102.01.A
Description
Aspinall AKA Curecanti
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
1/1/1956
Title
News Articles
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />v <br />iY" 'It ,./ <br /> <br />V'l(J-l' <br /> <br />THE NEW CURECANTI UN IT <br />OF <br />THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PRQJECT <br /> <br />~.)>: , . <br />.,7 <br />J. <br />..,1'" ..:z -;1../- Sf, <br />'- <br /> <br />The Curecanti Dam and Reservoir on the Gunnison River <br /> <br />was originally planned to hold back 2* million acre feet of <br /> <br /> <br />water dnd to extend upstream to within a mile or so of the <br /> <br /> <br />City of Gunnison. The people of this neighborhood did not <br /> <br />care for this plan because at certain seasons of the year <br /> <br />that part of the reservoir near Gunnison would be drained <br /> <br />and leave only the uncovered bottom of the reservoir. <br /> <br />The reservoir dS planned would have had a power <br /> <br />plant capacity of 54,000 KW. <br /> <br />As a result of opposition to the large reservoir a <br /> <br /> <br />smaller one containing 9fO,000 acre feet was designed. The <br /> <br /> <br />power plant capacity for this installation would have been <br /> <br /> <br />40,000 kW. Unfortunately the second, the small reservoir, was <br /> <br /> <br />not economically feasible because of the high cost of the <br /> <br /> <br />power - something over 11 mills per kilowatt hour. <br /> <br />The benefits of this installation would have been <br /> <br />only .86 of the costs where a ratio of 1.00 is required. <br /> <br /> <br />The large reservoir was estimated to cost $85,865,000 and the <br /> <br /> <br />small one $49,302,000. <br /> <br />For the past two years the Bureau of Reclamation has <br /> <br /> <br />been engaged in a preliminary re-study of the project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.