DOCSLIB.ORG

Cogjm.Crsp Prog Rpt April 1960.Pdf (1.729Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

""C C'"':) ""C C;") :::io :::io c::, ::ic:-, --1 c::, :::io :::ic, r-- ""C ~ c::, c::, c:.c- ""C ~ c::, ::ic:-, :::ic, CD :::io c:::: c::, :::io :::io c::, -~ ::- ~ ::ic:-, r-- :::ic, ~ C'"':) ~ :::io c::, --1 C;") --1 ~ C;") c::, Construction of the Colorado River Storage Under the a~thor~zing le~islation four great TH f CQ L Q R A O Q RI Vf R Project is well under way. Men and their giant earth water storage umts will be built, as well as many moving machines are working under full steam to "participating pr?jects" in Colorado, New Mexico, SJ Q RA G f pR Q J f CJ tame the mighty Colorado River and its tributary Utah, and Wyommg. streams and to reshape the destiny of a vast basin Water and power from the project will provide in the arid west. opportunity for industrial expansion, agricultural Great strides have been made in building the development, growth of cities, and will create new four-state project since President Eisenhower in jobs for thousands of Americans. The project will 1956 pressed the golden telegraph key in Washing­ create new markets, stimulate trade, broaden the ton, D. C., that triggered the start of this huge tax base, and bolster national economy. reclamation development. The Colorado River Storage Project is a multi­ Appropriations by the Congress have enabled purpose development. Storage units will regulate construction to proceed - and at costs less than stream flows, create hydroelectric power, and make engineers' estimates. much-needed water available for agricultural, in­ Construction of Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge and dustrial and municipal use. Flood control, recreation, Navajo Dams is going ahead swiftly. The Curecanti fish and wild life development have also been inte­ Storage Unit is expected to be under construction grated into the project. soon. Several important multi-purpose participating Some of the most rugged and beautiful scenery projects have been started. in the United States will be made accessible to the The Colorado River Storage Project is a phe­ average citizen when the projects are completed. nomenal undertaking. To the people of the West, it These areas, once trackless but beautiful wasteland, is a "dream come true," the end result of a half­ will provide recreational opportunity to Americans century of engineering research, planning and inter­ from every state. state negotiation. It means economic development The Project will aid national defense. It will pro­ for a remote river basin rich in natural resources, vide power and water necessary to develop minerals emerging into a new era. essential to the defense program and will create a To the people of the nation, the project means mountain stronghold vital to a secure America. a new land of opportunity, a new frontier in a vast Nature provided the resources. The Colorado area that constitutes one-twelfth of continental River Storage Project is developing them for the United States. It means the subduing of one of benefit of mankind. America's wildest and most savage rivers. LEFT The small figure of a man is dwarfed by the huge diversion tunnel at Gum Canyon Dam shortly before the Colorado River was diverted through the portaf,S. An aerial photograph shows a wide angle view of Gum Canyon Dam under construction. Looking upstream, you can see water gushing from the diversion tunnel. THE COMMISSION ----- The Upper Colorado River Commission is an interstate administrative agency created under the terms of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact executed at Santa Fe, New Mexico on October 11, 1948, and subsequently ratified by each of the legislatures of the states and by the Congress of the United States. The Com­ mission represents the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and the Federal Government. The major purposes of the Upper Colo­ rado River Basin Compact are: (1) to provide for the equitable division of the ..,._ use of waters of the Colorado River System ~ among the Upper Basin states, namely, .-" Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming; (2) to establish obligations of each state with respect to the delivery of water to the Lower Basin; (3) to pro­ mote interstate harmony; (4) to remove causes of controversies; (5) to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Upper Basin states, -·~·\ , ......... the storage of water, and the protection ·,.• of life and property from floods. ·- MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ARE: ROBERT J . NEWELL , ·­·~...... Chairman and Commissioner for United States ..... \,.. 1" -~ EDWIN C. JOHNSON, Commis.io11er for Colorado -.- .... \,- JOHN H. BLISS, Commissioner for New Mexico ··F.'·- ~. "'-- -~" ; GEORGE D. CLYDE, Commissioner for Utah -. ·-·' ~- .. EARL LLOYD, Conwuss,011er fo r Wyonung • ..•. ";: ~len Canyon Dam i_s o~e of the worl?'s. engi- GL [ N CA N Y Q N OA M neermg marvels. Its design 1s somewhat s1m1lar to Hoover Dam, although it will be larger in bulk but smaller in height than its downstream sister. When Glen Canyon Dam is completed in 1964, long, narrow Lake Powell will extend 186 miles into the heart of a little-explored, rugged but beautiful southern Utah wilderness, creating one of the larg­ est man-made lakes in the world. Construction of Glen Canyon Dam was nearly one-third complete by the beginning of 1960. At that time $125,611,440 in contracts had been let for Glen Canyon Dam. The entire unit is expected to cost $364 million. Power revenues alone will return far more than the cost. Workmen successfully diverted the turbulent A feeling of strength and beauty is conveyed by the structural steel of waters of the Colorado River through two giant di­ the Colorado River Bridge as it spans the gaping jaws of the canyon. version tunnels in February, 1959. Excavation work on the dam abutments, spillways, and foundation A dynamite blast sends smoke and debris into the air as workmen excavate for the foundation of Glen Canyon Dam. was nearly complete by the beginning of 1960. This year will see the first concrete poured in the massive ~:' ,~ . \ !:~" arch dam. ?:'r.\t ~ . \ The long and picturesque Colorado River bridge reached across the Colorado River and joined Utah and Arizona highways early in 1959. It was dedi­ cated and officially opened to traffic February 20, 1959. Construction of government facilities in Page, Arizona, were completed in 1959. Commercial and residential property in the damsite town will be sold to private individuals in 1960. After construction of the dam, Page promises to be the gateway to the Upper Basin, the gateway to scenic beauty, land of promise and opportunity. Workmen at Flaming Gorge drill and grout concrete in the diversion tunnel. A cabkway tower goes up on the right Fw.ming Gorge Dam will span the abutment at Fw.ming Green River in northeastern Utah, as shown Gorge Dam. in this aerial photograph and artist's drawing. A huge dump truck pw.ces earth and rock in the coffer dam at Fw.ming Gorge. ·: I FLAMING GORGE DAM Flaming Gorge Dam is being built on the Green River in northern Utah where in the dawn of western history rugged fur trappers held their famous rendezvous. A crystal mountain lake will lap the blazing gorges of the Uinta Mountains where buckskin-clad pioneers once plied their canoes, braved the dangerous rapids of the turbulent Green River and dodged the tomahawks of the Shoshoni and Blackfoot Indian. Famous mountain men such as Kit Carson, Jim Bridger, Gen. William Ashley and James Beckwourth were familiar participants in the annual Green River rendezvous and trading parties held at Henrys Fork, just upstream from the dam site. The nearby government town of Dutch John was named in honor of one of those legendary trappers. The concrete dam will rise nearly 500 feet out of bedrock to create the beautiful lake and second largest Storage Unit of the Colorado River Project. The dam also will provide revenue-producing hydroelectric power. A single diversion tunnel was drilled through 1,100 feet of solid sand­ stone to divert the waters of the Green River. Late in 1959 a rock and earth coffer dam changed the course of the river and water sloshed for the first time into the mouth of the gaping tunnel. Then workmen tackled the job of excavating the dam to bedrock. Pouring of the first concrete was expected by the summer of 1960. At the beginning of the year, Flaming-Gorge Dam was about 20 per cent complete with about three and one-half years left on the contract. Work progressed on schedule as the prime contractor, Arch Dam Con­ structors, continued excavation for dam abutments. A total of $35,889,402 in contracts had been let for Flaming Gorge Dam at the start of the new year. Total cost of the Unit is estimated at $73 million. Flaming Gorge Reservoir, like Lake Powell, has tremendous recrea­ tion potential. Beautiful pine forests, suckled by mountain waters, border the reservoir area, all within easy access of two interstate highways. Concrete is placed in the huge stilling basin at Navajo Dam. Work on the outlet structure below the tunnel at Navajo Dam nears completion. Nauajo Dam, the world's filth largest earthfill dam, is shown m this artist's conception. Navajo Dam will be among the largest earth-fill NA V A J O DA M dams in the world. Located in the noble setting of the proud Navajo Indian, this massive dam will rise nearly 40 stories ( 408 feet) out of the San Juan River, second largest tributary to the Colorado. Storage of water in the 35-mile-long reservoir will allow diversion of water to the Navajo Indian irrigation project, thereby bringing urgently needed moisture to 110,000 acres of dry, nonproductive land on the Navajo Indian Reservation.
Recommended publications
  • Draft Dolores Project Drought Contingency Plan

    Draft Dolores Project Drought Contingency Plan

    DOLORES PROJECT DOLORES DROUGHT WATER CONSERVANCY CONTINGENCY DISTRICT PLAN A plan to reduce the impacts of drought for users of the Dolores Project by implementing mitigation and response actions to decreases theses impacts 0 Table of Contents TABLES AND FIGURES .............................................................................................................. 3 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 6 DISTRICT BOARD RESOLUTION TO ADOPT PLAN ............................................................. 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 10 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Purpose of the Drought Contingency Plan ..................................................................... 11 1.2 Planning Area ................................................................................................................. 11 1.3 History of Dolores Project.............................................................................................. 18 1.4 Dolores Project Drought Background ...........................................................................
  • UCRC Annual Report for Water Year 2019

    UCRC Annual Report for Water Year 2019

    SEVENTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 2 UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 355 South 400 East • Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • 801-531-1150 • www.ucrcommission.com June 1, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear President Biden: The Seventy-Second Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, as required by Article VIII(d)(13) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 (“Compact”), is enclosed. The report also has been transmitted to the Governors of each state signatory to the Compact, which include Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Arizona. The budget of the Commission for Fiscal Year 2021 (July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021) is included in this report as Appendix B. Respectfully yours, Amy I. Haas Executive Director and Secretary Enclosure 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................. 8 COMMISSIONERS .................................................................................... 9 ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS ........................................................... 10 OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION ....................................................... 10 COMMISSION STAFF ............................................................................. 10 COMMITTEES ......................................................................................... 11 LEGAL COMMITTEE ................................................................................
  • TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Alexander

    TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Alexander

    1313 Sherman Street Jared Polis, Governor Denver, CO 80203 Dan Gibbs, DNR Executive Director P (303) 866-3441 F (303) 866-4474 Rebecca Mitchell, CWCB Director TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Alexander Funk, Agricultural Water Resources Specialist Interstate, Federal, and Water Information Section DATE: May 1, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: 9. Paonia Dam Outlet Works Modification MOA Reallocation Request Background: In 2011, the Upper Colorado River Division States (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico), the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the United States Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration, and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) authorizing the use of the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund (Basin Fund) to further the purposes of the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Act (Public Law 485). The MOA created a mechanism for the Upper Division States to access excess hydropower revenues for operations, maintenance and replacement costs (OM&R) for congressionally authorized CRSP Participating Projects (herein “Participating Projects”) and to reduce the impact on the CRSP firm power rate by eliminating the collection of power revenues beyond that amount needed to repay the costs of the existing projects through Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) represents Colorado in the implementation of the MOA and is responsible for ongoing project evaluation and prioritization. At the March 2019 Board Meeting, the Board approved the CRSP MOA Project Budget Adjustment Guidance (attached). This document outlines the process for CWCB staff to apply when considering project budget adjustment requests moving forward. When a Participating Project has an approved project budget that requires additional CRSP MOA funds, Reclamation must obtain Colorado’s approval.
  • Colorado River District's Annual Water Seminar Set for Friday, September

    Colorado River District's Annual Water Seminar Set for Friday, September

    Board of Directors Meeting Summary Page 1 July 2017 Every July quarterly Board meeting, the Colorado River District honors Directors who have rotated off the Board. At left, General Manager Eric Kuhn and current Board President Tom Alvey of Delta County present citations to for- mer Board President Jon Stavney of Eagle County. At right, President Alvey honors John Justman of Mesa County for his service. The annual honors are accorded during an after-meeting picnic on the grounds of the Colorado River District offices along the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs. Colorado River District’s Annual Water Seminar set for Friday, September 15th The Colorado River District’s popular one-day Annual contingency planning to reduce Lower Basin water use. Water Seminar is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 15th from Bill Hasencamp, Manager of Colorado River Resources 9:00 am to 3:30 pm at Two Rivers Convention Center, 159 for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Main Street, Grand Junction, Colorado. will bring the California and Lower Basin perspective to The theme is: “Points of No Return.” The cost, which the knot of issues, such as the Salton Sea, that bedevil includes buffet lunch, is $30 if pre-registered by Friday, how the Lower Basin will address declining water levels at Sept. 8th; $40 at the door. Cost for students is $10. The Lake Mead. cost is kept low in order to encourage as much public Yet another “Point of No Return” to be examined is the participation as possible for the District’s signature water concept of filling Lake Mead first at the expense of Lake education event.
  • A Partici Municipal

    A Partici Municipal

    COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD 102 Columbine Building 1845 Sherman Street Denver Colorado 80203 March 1975 DOLORES PROJECT The Dolores project is located in Dolores and Montezuma counties in southwestern Colorado Most of the project area lies outside of the present Dolores River basin Geologists believe that the Dolores River once flowed across the Montezuma Valley towards the southwest but was subsequently blocked and turned to the northwest by slowly rising mountains The project was authorized by the Congress in 1968 as a partici pating project of the Colorado River Storage Project The Dolores Water Conservancy District was organized in 1961 as the sponsoring and con tractual agency for the project The district includes portions of Dolores and Montezuma counties The Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribe is also a project sponsor Plan of Development The Dolores project would develop and manage water from the Dolores River for irrigation municipal and industrial use recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement It would also provide flood control improve summer and fall river flows downstream and aid in the economic redevelop ment of the area Supplemental irrigation supplies would be delivered to the Montezuma Valley area located in the central portion of the proj ect area Full irrigation water supplies would be provided to the Dove Creek area in the northwest and the Towaoc area in the south Municipal and industrial water would be furnished to Cortez Dove Creek and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribe at Towaoc Primary regulation of the Dolores
  • Green River Basin Water Planning Process

    Green River Basin Water Planning Process

    FINAL REPORT Green River Basin Water Planning Process February, 2001 Prepared for: Wyoming Water Development Commission Basin Planning Program States West Water Resources Corporation Acknowledgements The States West team would like to acknowledge the assistance of the many individuals, groups, and agencies that contributed to the compilation of this document. At the risk of possible omission, these include: The Green River Basin Advisory Group (facilitated by Mr. Joe Lord) The Wyoming Water Development Office River Basin Planning Staff The Wyoming Water Resources Data System The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality The Wyoming State Geological Survey The University of Wyoming Spatial Data and Visualization Center The Wyoming Game and Fish Department Dr. Larry Pochop, University of Wyoming The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Bridger-Teton, Wasatch-Cache, Ashley, and Medicine Bow National Forests) The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management The U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources Cover: Millich Ditch, East Fork Smiths Fork Prepared in association with: Boyle Engineering Corporation Purcell Consulting, P.C. Water Right Services, L.L.C. Watts and Associates, Inc. CHAPTER CONTENTS (Individual Chapters have page number listings) ACRONYM LIST I. INTRODUCTION A. Introduction B. Description C. Water-Related History of the Basin D. Wyoming Water Law E. Interstate Compacts II. BASIN WATER USE AND WATER QUALITY PROFILE A. Overview B. Agricultural Water Use C.
  • Changes to the Seedskadee Ecosystem

    Changes to the Seedskadee Ecosystem

    CHANGES TO THE SEEDSKADEE ECOSYSTEM This study obtained information on contem- warmer than in earlier times and large prey (horse, porary: 1) physical features, 2) land use and man- camel, mammoth, bison) became extinct or smaller agement, 3) hydrology, 4) vegetation communities, and native people shifted to hunt smaller animals and 5) fish and wildlife populations of Seedskadee (Thompson and Pastor 1995). They also probably NWR. These data chronicle the history of land and made greater use of vegetable foods that apparently ecosystem changes at and near the refuge from the occurred during this period; summers may have Presettlement period and provide perspective on been spent in mountains and winters were spent when, how, and why alterations have occurred to eco- in foothills and valleys. Early Archaic subsistence logical processes in the NWR and surrounding lands. centered around pronghorn, rabbits, and other small Data on chronological changes in physical features animals including fish and birds obtained in the and land use/management of the region are most Green River Valley. available and complete (e.g., from NWR annual nar- By about 2,000 BP, human populations in ratives, USDA data and records, sequential aerial southwest Wyoming increased and apparently many photographs, hydrology data from the Green River, small villages were established; evidence of early agri- etc.) while data documenting changes in fish and culture is found along some waterways. The Shoshone wildlife populations generally are limited. people spread into the Seedskadee region around 700 BP. They were a nomadic tribe that traveled widely and created multiple trails between the Green SETTLEMENT AND EARLY LAND USE River floodplain and nearby mountains (USFWS CHANGES 2002).
  • UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 355 South Fourth East Street Salt Lake City 11, Utah October 30, 1962 MEMORANDUM TO

    UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 355 South Fourth East Street Salt Lake City 11, Utah October 30, 1962 MEMORANDUM TO

    UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 355 South Fourth East Street Salt Lake City 11, Utah October 30, 1962 MEMORANDUM TO: Upper Colorado River Commissioners and Advisers FROM: Ival V. Goslin, Executive Director SUBJECT: Construction and Advance Planning Program of the Bureau of Reclamation for the Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects, et al 1 for fiscal year 1963. Note: this tabulation represents the distribution of all funds available including newly appropriated money 1 carry-overs, savings and slippage, etc. According to an announcement from the office of the Secretary of the Interior the details of the Bureau of Reclamation • s program of construction and advance planning for Fiscal Year 1963 include the items on the following pages of particular interest to the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Bureau of Reclamation• s Advance Planning program in the Upper Basin States includes two major projects--the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in Colorado estimated to cost $170 million and the San Juan-Chama Project in New Mexico estimated to cost $8 6 million. The three "new start" construction reclamation projects for which Congress appropriated funds for fiscall963 are: 1. Glen Elder Unit, Missouri River Basin Project, Kansas 2. Oake Unit, James Section, Missouri River Basin Project, South Dakota 3. Morrow Point facilities I Curecanti Unit, CRSP, Colorado STORAGE UNITS: Glen Canyon Storage Unit $4514021191 --to continue placement of concrete in Glen Canyon Dam and to continue construction of the powerplant and switch­ yard; to continue progress payments on the turbines 1 generators I governors I and other materials and equipment furnished .by the government.
  • THE GUNNISON RIVER BASIN a HANDBOOK for INHABITANTS from the Gunnison Basin Roundtable 2013-14

    THE GUNNISON RIVER BASIN a HANDBOOK for INHABITANTS from the Gunnison Basin Roundtable 2013-14

    THE GUNNISON RIVER BASIN A HANDBOOK FOR INHABITANTS from the Gunnison Basin Roundtable 2013-14 hen someone says ‘water problems,’ do you tend to say, ‘Oh, that’s too complicated; I’ll leave that to the experts’? Members of the Gunnison Basin WRoundtable - citizens like you - say you can no longer afford that excuse. Colorado is launching into a multi-generational water planning process; this is a challenge with many technical aspects, but the heart of it is a ‘problem in democracy’: given the primacy of water to all life, will we help shape our own future? Those of us who love our Gunnison River Basin - the river that runs through us all - need to give this our attention. Please read on.... Photo by Luke Reschke 1 -- George Sibley, Handbook Editor People are going to continue to move to Colorado - demographers project between 3 and 5 million new people by 2050, a 60 to 100 percent increase over today’s population. They will all need water, in a state whose water resources are already stressed. So the governor this year has asked for a State Water Plan. Virtually all of the new people will move into existing urban and suburban Projected Growth areas and adjacent new developments - by River Basins and four-fifths of them are expected to <DPSDYampa-White %DVLQ Basin move to the “Front Range” metropolis Southwest Basin now stretching almost unbroken from 6RXWKZHVW %DVLQ South Platte Basin Fort Collins through the Denver region 6RXWK 3ODWWH %DVLQ Rio Grande Basin to Pueblo, along the base of the moun- 5LR *UDQGH %DVLQ tains.
  • Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission Has Been Compiled Pursuant to the Above Directives

    Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission Has Been Compiled Pursuant to the Above Directives

    FIFTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Upper Colorado River Commission SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 ii iii This page intentionally left blank. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Letter of Transmittal . iii Preface ..................................................................... 1 Commission ................................................................. 2 Alternate Commissioners ....................................................... 3 Officers of the Commission . 3 Staff ....................................................................... 3 Committees ................................................................. 4 Advisors to Commissioners ..................................................... 5 Meetings of the Commission . 7 Activities of the Commission. 7 A. Engineering-Hydrology ................................................... 8 1. Colorado River Salinity Program ........................................ 8 2. Forecast of Stream Flow . 8 3. Summary of Reservoir Levels and Contents ................................9 LakePowell ........................................................9 LakeMead ........................................................12 4. Flows of Colorado River ...............................................23 B. Legal .................................................................31 1. Water Newsletter . 31 2. CourtCase .........................................................31 3. Legislation ..........................................................31 Colorado River Storage Project And Participating
  • Status of Construction

    Status of Construction

    UNITED STATES DEPAR'.IMENT OF THE IN'IERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Regional Office, Region 4 Salt Lake City J.O, Utah RE.MARKS BY REGIONAL DIRECTOR E. O. LARSON BEFORE THE UPFER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION AT CHEYENNE, WYOMING, MONDAY, SEPl'EMBER 2l, 1959 The F.t. 1960 appropriations by the Congress for the Upper Colorado River Basin are adequate to continue the construction activities now underway and include about $2-k million for 3 new participating project starts--the Hammond Project in New Mexico, Seedskadee Project in Wyoming, and Smith Fork Project in Colorado. The total. obligation program for construction on storage units and participating projects is $78,o80,032. In addition, $961,013 is available for advance planning and $915,654 for general. investigations. By comparison, the F.Y. 1959 obligation program was about 68 million dollars for construction. The authorized obl.igation program for continuing construction is as follows: $46.8 million for Glen Canyon, $12.9 million for Flaming Gorge, $10.l million for Navajo, $3.l million for Paonia Project, and $2.0 million for the Vernal Unit of the Central. Utah Project. Amounts included for the new participating projects are $487,000 for the Hammond Project, $1.3 million for the Seedskadee Project, and $487,000 for the Smith Fork Project. About $.764,ooo is available tor pre- construction work on the Transmission Division. STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION Generally speaking, construction of the storage units and participating projects has proceeded on schedule in F.Y. 1959. Contracts were awarded to begin construction on the Paonia Project and Vernal Unit, Central Utah Project, which were new starts in F.Y.
  • Sixty-Seventh Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission Has Been Compiled Pursuant to the Above Directives

    Sixty-Seventh Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission Has Been Compiled Pursuant to the Above Directives

    SIXTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Upper Colorado River Commission SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 33 II III iii (This page has been intentionally left blank.) IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Letter of Transmittal ....................................................................................................................iii Preface ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Commission ................................................................................................................................ 2 Alternate Commissioners ........................................................................................................... 3 Officers of the Commission ........................................................................................................ 3 Staff ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Committees ................................................................................................................................ 4 General Advisors to Commissioners .......................................................................................... 4 Meetings of the Commission ...................................................................................................... 5 Activities of the Commission......................................................................................................