| OCR Text |
Show The Diamond Fork Power Complex will generate 133 megawatts of power from the 2,000 foot drop in elevation from Strawberry Reservoir to the valley floor in the Bonneville Basin. A pumped storage (recycling) alternative design which is currently being evaluated would increase this capacity dramatically and would have a very favorable impact on project benefits. This Power Complex ties in with federal power development authorized under the Colorado River Storage Project Act. Utah, as a participating State, receives economic benefits under terms of the Act. BONNEVILLE UNIT CUP (as reproduced in newsletter from Congressman Marriott) - S a l t Lake City -Lampton Reservoir -Jordan Aqueduct -Alpine Aqueduct -Provo -Provo Bay & Goshen Bay -Wasatch Aqueduct -Mona-Nephi Canai -Mona Reservoir -Nephi -Naphi-Sevier Canal -Sevier Bridge Reservoir -Delta -Deer Creek Reservoir -Jordanelle Reservoir - Heber -Hays Reservoir --Syar Tunnel -Syar, Sixth Water, & Dyne Power Plants -Strawberry Reservoir -Current Creek Reservoir Strawberry Aqueduct Upper Stillwater Hesarvoir Lower Stillwater Reservoir -Starvation Reservoir -Duchesne -Bottle Hollow Reservoir -Roosevelt water for all purposes -^s^ ^i cx±± purposes !o_?i"_UutL_!aLn-'3^. dIeUv!e!l?o1p m"e"n.t.^ VIn5* c'o onft'r "aes"t', "nlegwh, qfueadleirtayl mloawTqH tan^ri- ngli,ni^7;r- - Iffi* £>rjip_or.the nation-s^jtjTOrtTis-ed on conservatiolT*r~^^ Rlains. Utah citizens have been led to belliy^tHat Utah»s survival is whol'lv H ^ n S upon CUP development of unlimited supplies of the Uinta Range watershed . dependent «,.,„ « . Storage and distribution of this water source to the Bonneville and Uintah Reservoir ° d 5 L * ^ £ g & n °f " P W ft"3 rrilfrrYOlril, fmUEEftffl^ o? the Strawberry Keservolr, clikes, aqueducts,, mountain tunnels, and use of onen canali.One 8 mile canal between Yellowstone and Lake Fork Rivers will move water from one stream draTn»L ?n^X mL. In order to compensate the Ute Tribe folF^fel^n?' ^ e - ^ f ^ m - ^ ^ i ^ 1 ^ 1 their water and forego irrigating some 15,000 acres of their land, until the year 2 005 the Bureau plans construction of or has constructed: Bottle Hollow Recreation Comnlex ^ P ^ f ^ S ^ f J g ^ t i l l w a t e r di^giggoir on bottomlands of Rock Creek? wildTife ror 2n. lE? Si nnU n d e r 7 ^° *u b s t i t u t e irrigation of Leland Bench on the Reservation for the lost 61,000 acre feet of water diverted into the StrawberryCollection System BASIS FOR WATER PROJECT AUTHORIZATION Congress authorizes water projects based on justified economic feasibility and a cost/benefit ratio of at least 1:1. The Bureau of Reclamation calculates feasibility and benefits under procedures it has developed over the years, I.e., vlding supplemental water and counting benefits equal to those from the Initial water supply; counting what mitigation takes place for lost wildlife resources as new benefits - not cost; justifying economically infeasible projects by treating as one, several ~ different projects, to offset projects which do not show net benefits. In addition, the Bureau is in a questionable position of using Section 8 Funds for wildlife mitigation as mitigation for "borrowing" Ute Indian water for 40 years. The Committee on Government Operations has reported that the Bureau viol ated its own procedures in reaching cost estimates, resulting in a $63,700,000 understatment of the costs for fiscal year 1976. In an"Economic Analysis of the Benneville Unit, CUP", Professor Thomas Power, Department Economics, University of Montana, raised serious questions about the real cost calualtions used for this Unit. He stated that for every $1 spent on the Project, there was a .32 benefit, only. CRCUP prepared a cost questionnaire to obtain basic economic information, forwarding this to the Dep't of Interior in September of 1978, and requesting written answers. To date, we have been unable to arrive at any basis for determining these. COSTS OF THE CUP WHO PAYS? IN WHAT WAY? 196H Definite Plan Report proposed construction schedule, Bonneville Unit 17 years 1973 Bonneville Unit Environmental Impact Statement 1979 Budget hearings 1978-1986 - Projected costs if completed under 8 year schedule 1978-2000 - Projected costs if completed under 22 year schedule (Based on 6 5/8% interest and existing inflation rate) $ 309,000,000 501,695,000 807,695,000 1,37*4,000,000 3,10^,000,000 |
