OCR Text |
Show duction on accoutn of uncertainties in available base data, would be as follows: Elevation of Raise in Elevation top of dam (ex- water level of water clusive of para- Continuous (feet) surface pet) output Annual output Horsepower Kilowatt-hours 557 1,204 1 1,207 547,000 3,600,000,000 575 1,222 1,225 585,000 3,800,000,000 582 1,229 1,232 597,000 3,900,000,000 'Same dam as reported by Colorado River Board, with freeboard reduced 7 feet, raising water level accordingly. It is estimated that these outputs can be maintained throughout the repayment period, particularly if other power dams are constructed along Colorado River. 3. Large amounts of dump power can be produced in seasons of high run-off without encroaching on flood control, irrigation, or the production of firm power. The cost and market for this power are so uncertain that no income should now be counted on from this source. 4. Raising the dam reduces the average cost of firm power output. There are indications, however, that this will not hold true for heights much beyond 582 feet. 5. For Boulder Canyon dams up to 575 feet, the power value of Bridge Canyon dam site would be affected but little and construction cost at Bridge Canyon would not be appreciably increased. For greater heights interference progresses steadily. E. B. Debler. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |