Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. · G - <br />-1! " <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />repayment capabilities of the Pryingpan,Arkansas <br />project, and there are no apparent di:ficulties <br />from tha t s tandpoin t. . <br /> <br />Mr, William I, Palmer, the Assistant Commissioner of <br />Reclamation, testified on the same subject at page 46, as <br />follows: <br /> <br />The cost of Ruedi Dam and ReserVOir is <br />estimated at S12,831,000 as compared to <br />S7,600,000 for the Aspen site that it <br />replaces. This increase in cost in the <br />amount of S5,231,000 would be under the <br />pending bill, an obligation of the <br />Prying pan-Arkansas project for repay- <br />ment purposes until such time as Congress <br />might relieve the project of this expense <br />through legislation to authorize the <br />Basalt project or alternative development <br />for utilization of Ruedi Reservoir storage. <br /> <br />Even th9u9h much of the ben~fit of Ruedi <br />will ultimately go to the west slope, <br />the Pryingpan-Arkansas people are will- <br />ing to underwrite the added cost of <br />Ruedi until such time as that cost can <br />be picked up by a project authorized <br />by the Congress. <br /> <br />Mr. L. R, Kuiper, Acting Director, Colorado Water <br />Conservation Boafd in a statement found at page 58 said: <br /> <br />, these new operating principles 5mend <br />those previously considered to take C5re <br />of the repayment of Ruedi Reservoir. The <br />Southeastern district has agreed to sign <br />a contract for the re9ayment of the project <br />by the district, for Ruedi Reservoir, <br />until such time as contractors are avail- <br />able in western Colorado to assume a <br />portion of the project's cost, <br /> <br />The following langu2ge is EJund both in Senate Report 1742 <br />of the 37th Con'Jrcss, 2d SeSSion, July 19, 1962 at page 6 <br />and House ~e90rt 694 of the 87th Congress, 1st Session, July <br />11, 1961, at page 7: <br /> <br />4 <br />