Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />UNITED STATES <br />DEPARTHENT OF THE INTERIOR <br />BUREAU OF RECLAHATION <br />REGION 4 <br />Post Office Box 360 <br />Salt Lake City 10, Utah <br /> <br /> <br />January 31, 1951 <br /> <br />To: Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation <br /> <br />From: Regional Director <br /> <br />Subject: Supplemental Report on Pine River Project Extension, Colo. <br />and N. Hex. <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Herewith is my report on the potential Pine River project <br />extension in the San Juan River Basin in southwestern Colorado and <br />northwestern New Mexico. It is a supplement to the comprehensive <br />report, entitled Colorado River Storage Project ~ Participating <br />l'rojects, revised December.1950~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Pine River project extension is one of a group of develop- <br />ments described as participating projects in the report of the Regional <br />Director on the Colorado River Storage project and participating proj- <br />ects, and is recommended in that report for authorization. The attached <br />report provides information on the Pine River project extension in <br />greater detail than does the comprehensive plan report. <br /> <br />Of the 15,150 acres that would be irrigated by the project, <br />1,940 acres are administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, The plan <br />outlined in the report provides that non-Indian irrigators would pay <br />their allocated costs for operation, maintenance, and replacements, <br />and would pay up to their ability on construction costs for a period <br />of 50 years, Prior obligations to pay costs of reservoir storage pro- <br />vided by the existing Pine River project would be considered in deter- <br />mining the ability of the lands to pay project extension costs. These <br />prior obligations may include the refunding of payments made by lands <br />that will not benefit from the reservoir. Nothing in the report is <br />intended to imply that the refunds should or should not be made, but <br />the possibility of refunds had to be considered in estimating the ability <br />of the lands to pay extension costs. . <br /> <br />Costs would be assigned to Indian lands for payment in the <br />same proportion as to non-Indian lands. Indian costs, however, would <br />b~ adjusted or eliminated under an extension of the Leavitt Act of <br />July~, 1932 (47 Stat. 564). All construction costs that are not <br /> <br />I <br />