WSP05579 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,- i 0 4 J. feasibility and that further detailed studies to detE,rmine the amounts of and charges for the return flew 'wuld not be nece~sary at this time The Policy and Review Committee discussed this .problen in detail and as a result it passed a motion that the matter of retu~ flow from imrorted water be left open for further consideration and study in the saine man- ner and procedure adopted for the problem of storabh winter water (sub- paragraph (b) above). (d) Lower Limit of Benefit Area. In order to !U1alyze properly the economic aspects of the Initial PhiS;;, Hr. Jliter subr.::ttted the question of whether the lower limit of the project should be ~onsiderl'd at the Colorado-Kansas state line or the John Martin Reservoir. Discussion disclosed that the Committee was generally of the beUef that it should not attempt to establish a limit for determination of project booefitd within the state and it was, therefore, decided for purposes of further studies and reviews by the Engineering Advisory Subcommittee that th13 lower boundary of the project would be considered as the state line. (e) Possible Future Additional lmportati2!l,!. It appearl'd to the Engineering Advisory Subcammittee that the discussion entitled "Possible Future Additional Importations" 00 Pages 58 through 60 of the Special Report, concerning plans for expansion of the Initial Phase developnent by diversions and interceptions from other tributaries of the Roaring Fork River and from the Gunnison River was a violation of previous ac.- tian by the Policy and Review Ccmnittee and should be deleted. Regional Director Batson stated that he could not see any objection to the inclu- sion of 9lch a statemant in the report. The Bureau is required to dis-. cuss alternate plans for providing similar servioes in reports. In this case, it was his intention to show that the \~ork5 included in the initial phase would also fit into any plan for increasing tran.smountain dive;-- sions should the state conclude that additional diversions were pennissi-- ble. After considering the matter the Conunittee passed a motion that. the suggestion of the Engineering Advisory Subcommittee be approved and that, recommendation be made to the Bureau of Reclamation to delete that sec-, tion of the report. (f) Economic Feasibility. Mr. Tipton reported that the EngjI1eeri.'lg Advisory Subeornmittee concluded from its review of the materia."I. uncle study that the economic feaaibility of the project. is dep~dent on }J:l.. ported water plus the extent to which Arkansas River w'ater can be used for power production and t.he extent to which winter cperatian is p0:3eib2.<'. 11. Fish and Nildlife Aspects. Hr. R. I.t, Il,y.rwel]" of t.he Albuq'.J.el"-11.:e Office read and explained to the Cormnittee a tentat.ive interiJIl statement from the Fish and Wildlife Service an its interests and views on the de';el,- oplllent of the Initial Phase, pending completion of its detailed rep'Jrt m February 1, 1950. A copy of this statement, dated September 9, 1949 , ie attached to these.minutes. Mr. R. A, Schmidt of the Denver Office assis+'6d Mr. Burwell in answering questions of the Corrunittee and explaining det.ails of studies in progress by the Servioe to determine more apecifically a~d firmly the effect, of the Initial Phase features on fish and \rildlife and tfJe 5