My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08244
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:47:27 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:50:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8147
Description
Arkansas River Basin - Gunnison-Arkansas Project
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
1/1/1954
Author
Unknown
Title
Gunnison-Arkansas Project - Reply to Questionnaire from John P Saylor to Secretary of the Interior - RE HR 236
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.
/
68
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 />03175" <br /> <br />12.(c) ~uestion - In view of statements made by the Department of <br />Agriculture t at the economio feasibility of that portion of the projeot <br />involvj,ng diversions of Vlater from the Colorado ba,sin remains open to <br />serious question, and :further that the transmountain diversion features <br />of the project should be ana~ed separately and their justification <br />detennined on the basis of incremental effects where added to those parts <br />of the project designed to make more effeotive use of the _ter supply <br />already available in the upper Arkansas basin, what do such separate <br />evaluations show in: (1) comparative costs per acre and (2) in costs <br />per acre-foot? <br /> <br />An~.er - This question is closely related to questions 5(a) and <br />5(b) to which the reader is referred. Arriving at the> incremental cost <br />of utilizing the imported \,ster would require lengthy and costly studies <br />if the data are to be of the same calibre as the present studies. Suf- <br />ficient time has not been allowed nor are funds available to make such <br />computations. <br /> <br />From a practical standpeint it is doubtfUl that the results of such <br />studies would be cenclusive ene way or the other. Certain basic assump- <br />tions would be required and the validity of the assumptions could be <br />debated in perpetuity. For example, numerous alternatives could be con- <br />sidered fer eastern-slope v~ter only. The most economical alternative <br />might be one not readily adaptable into the comprehensive plan. In such <br />an instance the incremental cost of the larger plan vmuld obviouSly be <br />fallaeious. Tho various components of the present plan are so interre- <br />lated that breaking eut a substantial portion of the water supply at the <br />upper end of the system would set up a chain reaction of consequences. <br /> <br />The present plan has beon devised for t\VO major purposes: (A) to <br />alleviate needs and (B) to maximize the use of a natural resource. A <br />smaller project would nullify full attainment of both of those objectives. <br />Inasmuch as the present plan of development is economically and finan- <br />cially sound, numerous studies of smaller projeets and segments would <br />largely be a costly academic approach. <br /> <br />However, if sufficient time and funds were made available, the <br />studies suggested by the Department of Agriculture c.Juld be made. <br /> <br />12. (d) Question - What comments would you make on addi lional <br />statements made by the Department of Agriculture? <br /> <br />Answer - The only additional comment in the Department of Agricul- <br />ture's letter of May 23, 1952, concerns provision for replacement of <br />any national-forest facilities that may be impaired by the proposed <br /> <br />- 15 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.