|
<br />01j2.;~n
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />'~
<br />
<br />-14
<br />
<br />(e) It would reduce the loss in tax returns to Gunnison County
<br />and its tax collecting sub-divisions, exclusive of returns from
<br />railroad valuations, arising from proposed reservoir storage, in
<br />comparison with Plan A, at least h6 rer cent, This reduction in
<br />tax returns is computed by the staff of the Colorado Hater Conser-
<br />vation Board on the basis of the report prepared by such staff
<br />and submitted at the June 11 and 12, 1951 nee tine of the Colorado
<br />:Jater Conservation Board. It is understood, of course, that there
<br />is a slight difference in the various conputations which have been
<br />made and submitted to the Committee with respect to the tax loss,
<br />arising from inundation of land, which would be suffered by Gunnison
<br />County and its tax collectinc sub-divisions in the event of
<br />2,500,000 acre-feet being stored at the Curecanti site. In any
<br />event, the effect on tax returns to Gwmison County through re-
<br />duction in storage at the Curecanti site to 9ho,000 acre-feet is
<br />reasonably well reflected by the percentage-wise fiGure set forth
<br />in this paragraph.
<br />
<br />(f) It would increase the tottll storago_oapacity of the Oryet1rl
<br />Reservoir from 40,000 acre-feet (as shovm in Plan A) to 510,000 acre-
<br />feet, and the active storage capacity from 0 to 425,000 acre-feet.
<br />
<br />(g) It would increase the initial salable hydroelectric energy
<br />from 839,000,000 kwh a year (as shown fo.. Plan !~) 1:0 914,000,000
<br />kwh a year, an :i:ncrease of 75,000,000 kwh a year, 'i'he generating
<br />facilities would be located at the Curecanti, C~,stal and Whitewater
<br />dam sites and would not require diversion of wat,,:, l:y tunnel from
<br />the river course through the Black Canyon Nationa'_ !I~onument, It
<br />utilizes an available dam site and storage capacity in the Black
<br />Canyon area above the Monument for power production purposes
<br />without interference vdth other uses of water or encroachment in
<br />anyway on the Nationall1Ionlil'lent; and it makes available 425,000
<br />acre feet of active capacity with only slight inundation of pre-
<br />sently cultivated and irrigated land. Such inundation as would
<br />occur will be in the extreme lower section of the Cimarron River
<br />Basin, where both economic and tax return losses occasioned there-
<br />by will be very minor as compared with inundation of the meadow
<br />land lying immediately west of the City of Gunnison.
<br />
<br />(h) It would increase the cost of storage units in the
<br />Gunnison River Basin over Plan h by $36,255,000, reducing the cost
<br />of the Curecanti from $81,870,000 to QS4,200,000 and increasing
<br />the cost of Crystal from ~3B,6So,000 to ~102,575,000, all such costs
<br />including pmver installations and transmission facilities, The in-
<br />creased energy resulting from the change of plans is not sufficient
<br />to balance the increase in cost of Gunnison River Basin storage
<br />units. Hcwrever, although the average annual initial power costs
<br />for the Gunnison River units will be inc..eased approximately 0,7
<br />mills per kwh above those calculated from the Colorado River Storage
<br />Project report, the average annual increase in initial power costs
<br />for the total energy generation of the entire Colorado River Storage
<br />
|