My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07841
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07841
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:29:07 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:37:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.127
Description
Savery-Pot Hook Project
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
1/1/1976
Title
Report on the Planning Coordinating Council Review of the Savery-Pot Hook Project & related Correspondence
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.
/
13
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 />c.J <br />C\l <br />00 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />12/17/76 <br /> <br />Planning Coordinating Council Review: Savery-Pot Hook Project <br /> <br />POLICY ISSUE AREAS <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Issues Dealing with the General Nature of Water Reclamation Projects <br />in Western Colorado: <br /> <br />A. What is the significance of increased and reliable water supplies to <br />agriculture in the area? <br /> <br />B. How can water developed for agriculture be kept in agricultural use? <br /> <br />C. Should the State of Colorado place agricultural development of water <br />over potential energy and domestic uses? <br /> <br />D. If the projects are not under construction by the end of this fiscal <br />year, will Congress fail to fund them in future years? <br /> <br />2. Issues Dealing Specifically with Savery-Pot Hook Project: <br /> <br />A. What is the extent and nature of the wildlife impacts and can such <br />adverse impacts be mitigated? <br /> <br />B. If wildlife losses cannot be mitigated, should the State favor agricultural <br />water development over wildlife protection by supporting the project? <br /> <br />C. Are there any endangered species affected by the project? <br /> <br />D. If Colorado opposes the Savery-Pot Hook project, what will be the effect <br />to Wyoming, a state which supports it? <br /> <br />E. What is the qualitative significance of the agriculture versus wildlife <br />question? Are the wildlife losses and agricultural gains comparable? <br />And to what extent do the gains outstrip the losses? <br /> <br />F. Are there any problems associated with dam safety? <br /> <br />G. What is the incidence of benefits and what is the incidence of costs <br />from the proposed project? How many land owners will benefit,' and to <br />what extent does their benefit confer a benefit upon a broader spectrum <br />of the population? <br /> <br />H. What is the viability of the project as an irrigation project? How <br />limited is the project viability by factors such as climate, soils, etc.? <br /> <br />I. Will this project make a significant contribution to Colorado's agricultural <br />base by keeping important lands in irrigation or bringing additional <br />important lands into irrigation? <br /> <br />J. If the remainder of Colorado's share of the Colorado River is committed to <br />these projects, will \~ater for future municipal or industrial development <br />corne at the expense of prime irrigated land? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.