My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08224
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08224
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:47:22 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:49:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101
Description
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1962
Title
News Articles - Press Releases - Miscellaneous Topics
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 />Newsletter Number 7 <br />November 1981 <br /> <br />(2F. <br />- <br /> <br />";) <br /> <br />Glen Canyon Dam <br />Powerplant Expansion Stuc <br /> <br />FEASIBILITY STUDY CONCLUDED <br /> <br />The decision to conclude the investigation of producing additional <br /> <br /> <br />peaking power at Glen Canyon Dam was made by the Commissioner of <br /> <br /> <br />Reclamation, Robert N. Broadbent and Clifford Barrett, Upper Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />Regional Director, on October 21, 1981. The purpose of the study was to <br /> <br /> <br />determine the feasiblity of increasing the peaking power capacity at Glen <br /> <br /> <br />Canyon Powerplant by 250 megawatts by adding two additional generators to <br /> <br /> <br />the outlet works and to study the related impacts of such an increase in <br /> <br /> <br />peaking capacity. The study began in 1979 as part of a regional study to <br /> <br /> <br />determine the feasibility of developing peaking power resources to meet <br /> <br /> <br />future power demands. It was expected that it would have taken another <br /> <br /> <br />year to complete feasiblity studies. <br /> <br /> <br />Based upon appraisal level estimates, the benefits for the proposed <br /> <br /> <br />project exceed the cost by 1.98 to 1. However, the investigation is being <br /> <br /> <br />concluded for two reasons: there was a lack of strong public support for <br /> <br /> <br />the project and termination will help in achieving budget cuts sought by <br /> <br /> <br />President Reagan. Comments at public meetings held ln Phoenix, <br /> <br /> <br />Flagstaff, and Page, Arizona and Denver, Colorado generally did not <br /> <br /> <br />support continuing the Glen Canyon study. Much public concern was <br /> <br /> <br />expressed over the possible interference with public rafting use in the <br /> <br /> <br />Grand Canyon. <br /> <br /> <br />The Durango Projects Office is concluding its functions associated <br /> <br /> <br />with the study. The planning teams which were part of this study will no <br /> <br /> <br />longer need to meet. This includes the planning team and the biological, <br /> <br />recreational, social, and power subteams. We appreciate <br />efforts contributed by the members of these teams and the <br /> <br />I; <br /> <br />I; <br /> <br />!; <br /> <br />the t~'me and <br />public. O.)~~~~~~J?~ [ <br />~\![ fi~I\! 19 1981 <br />,II <br />L:;' , <br />COLORADO WATER <br />CY~S=~1':W!0~1 eOARD <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.