Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />