DOCSLIB.ORG

Cogjm.Ucrc Memo 1961-10-24.Pdf (507.1Kb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 355 South Fourth East Street Salt Lake City 11 , Utah October 24, 1961 ( MEMORANDUM TO: Upper Colorado River Commissioners and advisers. FROM: Ival V. Goslin SUBJECT: Funds available in fiscal 1962 for Bureau of Reclamation's construction program for the Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects. According to a news release of.the Bureau of Reclamation of the U • S. Department of the Interior dated October 2 0, 19 61 there were seven new project construction starts for which the First Session of the 87th Congress appropriated funds for fiscal 1962. These projects are: 1. San Luis Unit of Central Valley Project in California 2. Cheney Division, Wichita Project in Kansas 3 • Norman Project in Oklahoma 4. Western Division, The Dalles Project, in Oregon 5. Bully Creek Extension, Vale Project in Oregon 6. Canadian River Project in Texas 7. Emery County participating project of Colorado River Storage Project in Utah Also included in new construction appropriations is money for the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, a major feature of the Central Valley Project in California, and the Avondale, Dalton Gardens, Hayden Lake Pipe Rehabilitation Project in Idaho. The news release also lists the following sums of money available in fiscal 19 62 from appropriations and carry over for the Storage Units and p~rticipating projects of the Colorado River Storag~ Project: ST03bGE UNITS "Glen Canyon Unit, CRSP, Arizona-Utah. $35,275,000; to con­ tinue place~ent of concrete in the Glen Canyon Dam; continue construction of Glen Canyon Powerplant and Switchyard with completion of the powerplant structure scheduled this year; continue payments on the turbines, generators, governors, and other materials and equipment furnished by the Govern­ ment; award contract for completion of the dam, powerplant, and switchyard; and purchase additional materials and equip­ ment." II Flaming Gorge Unit, CRSP, Utah and Wyoming • $11 , 430, 000; to continue concrete placing operations in the Flaming Gorge Dam; continue construction of the powerplant and switchyard; continue construction of the highway from Greendale Junction to the right abutment of the dam; complete relocation of the State Highway 43 and of Forest Service facilities. Award contracts for completion of dam, powerplant and switchyard, and for relocating Wyoming State Highway 530 around Flaming II Gorge Reservoir o 11 Curecanti Unit, CRSP, Colorado. $6,222,000; for continuation of construction work under contract with the State of Colorado for the relocation of segments of U. S. Highway 50 and State Highway 92 in the Blue Mesa Reservoir area; specifications will be completed and a contract awarded for Blue Mesa Dam Powerplant, and Switchyard; continue purchase of rights-of­ way in the Blue Mesa Reservoir area; secure field data for use in preparation of designs and specifications for Morrow Point Dam, Powerplant and Switchyard to permit award of construction contract in spring of 1963; award contracts for building temporary construction camp. 11 "Navajo Unit, CRSP, New Mexico and Colorado. $4,910,000; for the completion of construction of Navajo Dam and the installation of Government-furnished equipment in the outlet works and substantially completing clearing of the reservoir area • Work will continue on the relocation of the Colorado portion of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad and the Archuleta County road in the vicinity of Arboles, Colorad()." - 2 - - PARTICIPAT,ING PROJECTS i "Florida Project, CRSP, Colcrado. $2,815,000; to continue construction of Lemon Dam, including award of contracts for Government-furnished equipment; award contract for enlarge­ ment of Florida Farmers Ditch, and Florida Canal and for the Florida Farmers Diversion Dam. 11 "Paonia Project, CRSP, Colorado. $494,000; for the completion of construction of the Paonia Project, including the Paonia Dam and lining of the Fire Mountain Canal at various critical points. "Smith Fork Project, CRSP, Colorado. $2, 07 3, 000; to continue construction of Crawford Dam and complete the relocation of State Highway 92 around the reservoir and to continue construction of the Aspen Canal. Construction is to start on Smith Fork Feeder Canal and Diversion Dam." "Hammond Project, CRSP, New Mexico. $1,895,000; to com­ plete construction of the Hammond Diversion Dam and Hammond Pumping Plant and to continue construction of the Main Canal and Laterals. 11 "Central Utah Project, Vernal Unit, CRSP. $1, 323, 000; to complete construction of the Steinaker Service Canal and Laterals and to contribute funds to local organizations for enlargement of system to achieve required distribution of stock water through domestic water lines." "Emery County Project, CRSP, Utah. $500,000; preconstruction activities will be underway on Joes Valley Dam and Reservoir and on the relocation of Utah Highway 2 9, with a contract for this relocation to be negotiated late in the fiscal year. Pre­ construction activities will be underway on Huntington North Dam and Reservoir with a relocation contract to be negotiated in the last quarter of the fiscal year. Preconstruction activities will be underway on Cottonwood Creek-Huntington Canal and Huntington North Service Canal." "Eden Project, Wyoming. $172, 000; to initiate construction on pumping facilities to utilize return flows to the Big Sandy Creek by lifting water to the West Side Laterals; line the - 3 - .... - remaining portions of the West Side Laterals; continue investigations for water conservation methods. 11 11 Seedskadee Project, CRSP, Wyoming. $5,846,000; to continue construction of Fontenelle Dam; complete nego­ tiations for relocating U.S. Highway 18 9 in the reservoir area; award contracts for Government-furnished equipment to be installed in the dam; award contract for first reach of the West Side Canal; complete field data for issuance of specifications on West Side Lateral and Upper West Side Pumping Plant; complete construction of the temporary construction camp and the permanent O&M service build­ ings and O&M houses which will be initially used by con­ struction personnel. 11 ADVANCE PLANNING "Advance Planning, Colorado River Storage Project, Colorado­ Utah-Wyoming. $1, 407, 000; the Colorado program provides for the completion of an economic justification report on the Crystal Dam and powerplant of the Curecanti Unit, and to complete a Definite Plan Report on the Silt Project. In Utah advance planning studies will continue on the Central Utah Project. iri Wyoming advance planning studies will continue on the Lyman Project; The program also provides for the continuation of quality..;of--water studies in the upper Colorado River basin, as authorized by law. 11 The Advance Planning program will be funded with: Appropriation for 19 62 $1,279,000 Carry over 128,335 $1,407,335 Anticipated advances from States, etc., $115, 7 50 plus Stores $1, 819' plus undelivered orders $12, 039 less service facilities $50, 000 will bring the total cost of the Advance Planning program for the CRSP to 1 $1, 486, 943 for fiscal 1962 which is anticipated to be used as follows: - 4 - - ADVANCE PLANNING COST PROGRAM -- FISCAL 19 62 Curecanti - Crystal $ 28,154.00 Central Utah 1,173,096.00 Emery County Project 29,266.00 LaBarge Project 4,000.00 Lyman Project 161, l 70 .oo Silt Project 23,145.00 Quality of Water 68 I 112 .oo TOTAL COST $1,486,943.00 ) TRANSMISSION UNES "Transmission Division, CRSP, Utah-Colorado-New Mexico­ Arizona-Wyoming. $14, 122, 000; for continuing construction on the Flaming Gorge-Oak Creek single-circuit transmission lines and substations, also for the Glen Canyon-Curecanti single-circuit transmission lines and substations and for the Gunnison-Blue Mesa-Curecanti-Montrose single-circuit trans­ mission lines and substations. Construction is scheduled to start on the Vernal-Springville-Hyrum single-circuit transmis­ sion line and substation and on the Craig-Sinclair single-circuit transmission line and substation. Also on the Glen Canyon­ Pinnacle Peak-Mesa single-circuit transmission line and sub­ stations, and the Shiprock-Albuquerque single-circuit trans­ mission line and substation and on the Curecanti-Midway single-circuit transmission line and substation. The Curecanti­ Craig single-circuit transmission line is scheduled for start of construction late in the fiscal year. Preconstruction activities will be underway on the Glen Canyon-Centerfield-Fillmore-St. George single-circuit transmission line and substations and on the Midway-Limon 230-kv. transmission line and substation and on various future transmission lines and interconnection facilities." RECREATION and FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES "Other Agencies, Various States. $2,933,500; for the initial construction of recreational and fish and wildlife facilities as provided by Section 8 of the enabling act." - 5 -.
Recommended publications
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Cogjm.Larson Letter Crsp 02-08-1951

    Cogjm.Larson Letter Crsp 02-08-1951

    , UNITED STATES DEPAkTYEhT O~'THE INfERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REGION 4 Post Office Box 360 Salt Lake City 10, Utah February 8, 1951 To the Editor: The enclosed press release, ma..!7&, and physical data on the potential Colorado River Storage Project and Participating Projects may prove valuable as source material in future reporting of the Upper Colorado River Basin development. Although the project report has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior there will not be enough copies for general distri- bution until and if the report is printed as a Senate Document. The accompanying fact sheets should give you sufficient data, however, until reports are available upon request. As you know the report is now being reviewed by federal agencies and the governors of the basin states. Under the Flood Control Act of 1944, they have approximately until May 1, 1951, to submit their comments to the Secretary of the Interior for subsequent submission with the report to the President and the Congress. E. O. Larson Regional Director DEPARTM:!::HTOF THE INTl::RIOR ~r:tEAU OF !t&CLA";:ATIO~T News release for Wednesday, Jan. 31, 1951 - 10 AI', KST UPPER COLORltDO RIVER DEVELOPMENT REPO:lT ft.PPROVEDBY SECRETARY CHft.PMAN A plan for development of the water and power resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin, which drains portions of five Rocky Mountain States, has been approved by Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman and sent to the Colorado River Basin States (Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) for comment. The plan is in the fo~ of a Bureau of Reclamation Planning Report entitled "The Colorado River Storage Project and Participating Projects, Upper Colorado River Basin." The Report, which also goes to other Federal Agencies for review and comment, envisions the eventual construction by the Bureau of Reclamation of 10 dams and reservoirs with storage capacity of 48.5 million acre-feet of water and 1,622,000 kilowatts of hydroelectric cape.city and nume rous partici- pating irrigation projects.
  • 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).
  • 107 Part 208—Flood Control Regulations

    107 Part 208—Flood Control Regulations

    Corps of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, DoD § 208.10 PART 208—FLOOD CONTROL sponsible for the efficient operation REGULATIONS and maintenance of all of the struc- tures and facilities during flood periods Sec. and for continuous inspection and 208.10 Local flood protection works; mainte- maintenance of the project works dur- nance and operation of structures and fa- ing periods of low water, all without cilities. cost to the United States. 208.11 Regulations for use of storage allo- (3) A reserve supply of materials cated for flood control or navigation and/ or project operation at reservoirs subject needed during a flood emergency shall to prescription of rules and regulations be kept on hand at all times. by the Secretary of the Army in the in- (4) No encroachment or trespass terest of flood control and navigation. which will adversely affect the effi- 208.19 Marshall Ford Dam and Reservoir cient operation or maintenance of the (Mansfield Dam and Lake Travis), Colo- project works shall be permitted upon rado River, Tex. 208.22 Twin Buttes Dam and Reservoir, Mid- the rights-of-way for the protective fa- dle and South Concho Rivers, Tex. cilities. 208.25 Pensacola Dam and Reservoir, Grand (5) No improvement shall be passed (Neosho) River, Okla. over, under, or through the walls, lev- 208.26 Altus Dam and Reservoir, North Fork ees, improved channels or floodways, Red River, Okla. nor shall any excavation or construc- 208.27 Fort Cobb Dam and Reservoir, Pond (Cobb) Creek, Oklahoma. tion be permitted within the limits of 208.28 Foss Dam and Reservoir, Washita the project right-of-way, nor shall any River, Oklahoma.
  • 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.
  • Cogjm.Crsp Prog Rpt April 1960.Pdf (1.729Mb)

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

    ""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.
  • 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.
  • 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......................................................................................................