Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~G2~3 <br /> <br />- 10 - <br /> <br />(c) The cost of storage facilities proposed for construotion <br />in the Gunnison River Basin, must comply with reasonable standards <br />of financial feasibility in relation to, and as a part of, the <br />Colorado River storage Project plan, <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />(d) The objectives set forth ~n (~)~ (b) and (c) abov~ should <br />be attained without unnecessary and avoidable detriments and .'economic <br />losses to areas which would.be inundated by proposed reservoir storage. <br />In the evaluation of Federal Reclamation project plans, consideration - <br />should be given to negative values, as well as to the benefits arising <br />from such projects, Consistent with major project objectives, sub- <br />stantial losses to the existing econo~ of one area, where reservoir <br />storage or other project features are located for the benefit of the <br />larger or adjacent areas, should be a'1oided as far as possible. <br /> <br />(e) Desirable dam sites, such as that for the proposed Curecanti <br />Reservoir, should not be exploited for relatively minor storage purposes, <br />SO as to foreclose their future use to accomplish needed storage in the <br />area for the best interest of the State's water development progran in <br />relation to holdover storage requirements in the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />(f) The adoption of a storage plan for the Gunnison River BaSin, <br />as a part of the Colorado River Storage Project, should not be controlled <br />solely by those factors which favor the best plan, from an engineering <br />and economic point of view, for.the entire Colorado River Storage Project. <br />Due consideration sjould be given to economic factors and programs for <br />water development which are directly related to and concern the State <br />of Colorado and its affected local areas, <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />(g) It is in the interests of the state of Colorado in its <br />future development and the utilization of its remaining water supplies, <br />as well as in the interest of local areas directly ~ffected, to avoid <br />internal controversies and dissensions which would jeopa~dize the <br />program of comprehensive development of the Upper Colorado River Basin <br />and t he ability of the State to collaborate with the other Upper Colorado <br />River Basin States in furthering the program submitted by the Bureau of <br />Reclamation's Colorado River Storage Project Report, <br /> <br />y <br /> <br />2. That the Engineering Advisory Committee to the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin Compact Commission determined that the active storage <br />capacity required to equate the stream flow ab,we Lee Fer1:r would not <br />exceed 30,000,0'10 acre-feet; that the i\ureau of Recla'llaticn, after <br />making fu.ther studi~s on the subject, determined that the active <br />storage r3quired to eq;:;.c.~,p' the stream flu.' above Lee Ferr:' and to <br />enable the Upper Basin to ,.':,1.lize 7, Soo ,000 .....ot'o-feet of water a year <br />would be approximately d,OJO,OOO acre-.f8<Ot" ann ;;;;u'c ,. ,~<:.,,-l c'tp",,:it.y <br />