My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05579
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05579
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 10:21:15 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:07:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8147
Description
Gunnison-Arkansas Project
State
CO
Water Division
4
Date
11/24/1948
Author
Pol Rev Com Gun-Ark
Title
Minutes of Meeting Policy and Review Committee Gunnison-Arkansas Project Colorado with attached reports and documentation
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
157
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 />09S~J <br /> <br />',. <br />(b) Field surveys made since the completion of the draft of <br />report have indicated some modified locations of power sites and <br />canals 'llhich will reduce the estilnated cost. <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />(c) Rough water supply calculations !:lade since the preparation <br />of the draft show the possibility of reducing the capacities of some <br />, of the powerplants, with consequent saving in cost. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />(d) Final decision has not been made on the location and amount <br />of replacement storage to be provided in Western Colorado. The Ruedi <br />reservoir site on the Frying Pan River has been selected, tentatively, <br />but studies are being continued of other sites, particularly ,the <br />Bridgeport site on the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. <br /> <br />(e) Many legal and administrative problems will be encountered <br />in working out the necessary operating agrEellHlts for the project. <br />It is anticipated, however, that these lIill not prove to be insur- <br />moun table. <br /> <br />7. Mr. Riter stated that the Hydrology Division of the Bureau of <br />Reclamation was makinG a review of the water supply studies of the project <br />report. He described some 'of the policy questions that should be con- <br />sidered by the cor.unittee as follows: <br /> <br />.-, <br /> <br />(a) Is it a sound assumption to anticipate that water will be <br />accumulated in the Eastern Slope reservoirs for a period of about <br />four years before the project starts operating, in order that such <br />water can be used in exchange for Arkansas River water to facilitate <br />the development of firm pOller? For this plan to be successful, it <br />will be necessary to hold over considerable quantities of project <br />water at' the end of the irri[;ation season, even tlurinG years of ex- <br />treme shortage, such as, 1931 and 1934. <br /> <br />(b) Is the sUG[,cstion shown in the report of storing vanter <br />water in Pueblo resel~oir in lieu of present winter diversions to <br />the lands a pract.ical one? <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />(c) Is it reasonable to an ticipa te that the Tni.n Lakes Canal <br />and Reservoir Coapany vlill participate in the project to the extent <br />indicated in the present draft of report and thus increase the im- <br />portation to the valley by SOI!le 30,000 acre-feet per J'ear? <br /> <br />(d) A recent trip throUGh the basin impressed him vii th the <br />ur(:ent need for r.1unicipal water supply. The coIJI!li ttee was asked to <br />consider the adequacy of tentative allocation of 5,700 acre-feet for <br />I!lunicipal water supply purposes. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />(e) Sinee the project in its present form cannot meet the stand- <br />artls f0r feasibility to permit Secretarial au~horization, it would <br />need to be authorized by an act of ConGress. ~l ,~ew thereof and the <br /> <br />, <br />. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.