Benefits for all … Colorado River Storage Project

----/h~ t!aj~ !ot .f/u.thottjatlon

of

the

Colorado River

Storage Project and

Participating Projects

•

Introdu

c

tion

Ill{

HOPE that you will read this little booklet- read it carefully- and let us know what you think about its con-tents.

For something like 50 years, the Bureau of Reclamation, working in close cooperation with the states affected, has been investigating water resource development possibilities in the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River Basin includes the seven-state area drained by the Colorado River or a tributary or tributaries thereof, togeth'er with all other areas in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming to which the waters of the Colorado River or any of its tributaries may be beneficially applied. One of the results of these inves-tigations was the realization that an understanding must be reached among the states themselves on the subject of the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries. The dif-ficulties standing in the way of detailed agreement on this subject proved, in those earlier days, to be insurmountable. The best that could be accomplished was to divide the Colo-rado River Basin into two parts- the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin- and to apportion to each of those parts a share in the use of waters of the Colorado River system. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 effects such an ap-portionment.

Years then elapsed, during which great water-resource development projects were constructed in the Lower Basin - the magnificent Imperial Valley, the thousands of acres of irrigated land in the Palo Verde District, the splendid aqueduct transporting water for Los Angeles, and other developments in California and Arizona; the industrial

em-pire of Los Angeles, and its environs-all of these bear wit-ness to the enormous benefits derived by the Lower Basin from the construction of such works as Imperial Dam, Hoover Dam, Parker Dam, Davis Dam, and other works.

In the Upper Basin, however, only a few comparatively minor works were constructed. Development there was retarded and eventually brought to a virtual standstill, be-cause of lack of agreement among the Upper Basin States on the division of the waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries and apportionment among them of their share

as a group in the beneficial use of those waters.

Many months of negotiations finally culminated in the execution in behalf of the States of Arizona, Colorado, ew Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, on October 11, 1948, of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, which apportioned to each of these states, as Upper Basin States, the following consumptive use out of the total apportioned to them as a group by the Colorado River Compact of 1922:

Arizona-50,000 acre-feet of water per annum Colorado--51.75 per cent

New Mexico--11.25 per cent Utah-23 per cent

Wyoming-14 per cent

The consumptive use for Colorado, ew Mexico, Utah

and Wyoming was computed after deduction of the use, not to exceed 50,000 acre feet per annum, made by

Ari-zona. The compact in question was thereafter duly ratified by the Legislatures of the signatory states and consented to by the Congress.

Having passed that milestone, the Upper Colorado River

Basin has worked earnestly to achieve, at last, a measure

of water-resource development that will be well within its rights under the Colorado River Compact of 1922; that

will be consistent with full protection of the Lower Basin under the self-same Compact; and that will be practicable both from engineering and economic standpoints. The fol-lowing few pages seek to tell in brief about the salient aspects of our plan and some of its most important benefits.

The Report

On December 15, 1950, the Regional Director for Region IV of the Bureau of Reclamation, with headquarters at Salt Lake City, Utah, completed and forwarded to the Commissioner of Reclamation, at Washington, his report on a proposed project which was named the "Colorado River Storage Project and Patrticipating Projects." That

•

report was subsequently approved with minor revisions by the Commissioner of Reclamation. It was then approved by the Secretary of the Interior on January 31, 1951 for circulation among the interested states in accordance with the requirements of the Act of December 22, 1944, com-monly known as the "Flood Control Act of 1944." None of the interested states has commented adversely upon such report, which outlines proposals for the creation of a com-bination of dams, reservoirs, power plants and other ap-purtenant structures on the Upper Colorado River and its principal tributaries. Recommendations of the Upper Colo-rado River Commission differ slightly from the Bureau of

Reclamation report with respect to designated units for

initial authorization. The Commission also recommends additional participating projects as a result of

investiga-tions subsequent to the release of the Bureau of Reclama-tion report. The plan hereinafter discussed is that proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation as modified by the Upper Colorado River Commission.

The Plan

The plan proposed and presented herein has been worked out in close cooperation with representatives of the States of the Upper Colorado River Basin. It would provide flex-ibility in the basin development and coordination of in-terests of the Natiim and States of the Upper Colorado

River Basin.

Essentially the plan consists of two broad divisions.

Re

g

ulat

i

ng Reservoi

r

s and Power Plants

Total storage Height Power

Name capacity of dam ins tall a tio 11 Estimated

(acre-feel) (feet) (kilowatts) Cost

''·Glen Canyon 26,000,000 580 800,000 $363,900,000 ''·Echo Park 6,460,000 525 200,000 165,400,000 ''·Flaming Gorge 3 ,940,000 440 72,000 82,700,000 ''·Navajo 1,200,000 335 3 0,000 63 ,000,000 Subtotal (37,600,000)

I

(1,880)

_I

(1,102,000)

I

.

( $675,000,000) ,:-,:·curecanti 2,500,000 475 54,000 80,400,000 Cross Mountain 5,200,000 295 60,000 51,000,000 Crystal 40,000 305 48,000 37,900,000 Gray Canyon 2,000,000 445 210,000 178,400,000 Split Mountain 3 3 5,000 245 100,000 76,400,000 Whitewater 8 80,000 255 48,000 40,000,000 Total 48,5 5 5,000

_I

3,900

I

1,622,000

I

$1,139,100,000

,,. Requested for initial authorization.

,:-,:·As of the time when this booklet was prepared, a final decision on the recommended size of the Curecanti reservoir had not been reached by the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Initial Participating Projects

Project

''.Eden Project, Wyoming

''·Paonia Project, Colorado

Central Utah Project (Initial Phase), Utah.

Emery County Project, Utah

Florida Project, Colorado

Goos~berry Project, Utah

Hammond Project, New Mexico

LaBarge Project, Wyoming .

Lyman Project, Wyoming . ...__

Pine River Extension Project, Colorado ___,.

Seedskadee Project, Wyoming _ _

Silt Project, Colorado

Smith Fork Project, Colorado_

-Subtotal .

,:-,:·south San Juan Project, ew Mexico

,,. ''·San Juan-Chama Project, New Mexico

,:-,:-shiprock Indian Project, New Me;ico

''·These projects are authorized.

Total area irrigated (acres) 20,000 17,040 160,3 80 24,080 18,95 0 16,400 3,670 7,970 40,600 15,150 60,720 7,300 10,430 (365,650) Estimated Cost 5,986,000 6,355,000 198,840,000 7,840,000 6,211,500 4,760,000 1,892,3 00 1,476,000 9,847,000 4,088,000 20,379,000 3,190,000 3,148,000 ( $274,012,800)

dams with appurtenant power plants on the Upper Colo-rado River and its major tributaries. The other is made up

of separate participating projects which are dependent up-on the storage and river regulation for their water supply and for financial assistance from sale of surplus power

generated by the storage project hydroelectric system.

The primary need for river regulation arises from the conditions of Article IIId of the Colorado River Compact

of 1922 committing the States of the Upper Division to

delivery at Lee Ferry of 75 million acre-feet in all periods of 10 successive years. With increased use of water in the Upper Basin this delivery can be accomplished only by

storage of water in long-time holdover reservoirs during

years of high runoff for release during years of drought. The result would be a regulated river permitting maximum use of apportioned water in both Upper and Lower Basins.

A regulated river system would be highly conducive to the production of firm hydroelectric energy at these Upper Basin dam sites. The project energy could be sold in an

assured market area which warrants an immediate start on

construction and completion of all 10 units of the storage project within the next 20 to 25 years.

Within 50 years after each generating unit goes into production, net revenues over and above that needed for operation, maintenance, and replacements will be sufficient to retire the entire construction cost of the storage project and in addition create a surplus aggregating some

$675,000,000 for assistance in developing worthy new

irri-gation projects, known as participating projects, in the Upper Basin.

There are 100 or more of these potential irrigation projects in the Upper Basin. The water apportioned to the Upper Basin, however, is not sufficient for all of these potential developments. The plan therefore provides for a careful screening of each irrigation project with partici-pation conditioned on compliance with qualifying criteria,

restricting financial aid only to the best and most worthy

irrigation projects.

In the initial request for authorization are 16

unani-mously approved participating projects. Construction of

three New Mexico projects is contingent, however, upon a

decision by New Me1-ico concerning use of her allotted water. Plans for additional participating projects will be presented to the Congress from time to time as justified by future investigations. Utimately the plan will permit full utilization by the Upper Basin of all water apportioned

to it under the Colorado River Compact.

Financial Aspects

The total cost of the Colorado River Storage Project and Participating Projects, discussed under The Plan, is estimated in round figures at $1,500,000,000.''· EVERY PENNY OF THAT COST WILL BE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

No part of the cost of these works, either capital

in-vestment or operation and maintenance, is proposed to be held nonreimbursable.

After every penny of capital investment has been turned, the United States of America will continue to re-ceive net revenues of at least $20,000,000 per year, at the proposed rates for power.

In other words, the Colorado River Storage Project and

Participating Projects constitute an investment opportunity of the highest quality.

,,. This is not an estimate made by the Bureau of Reclama-tion. It is a generous estimate made by the staff of the

Up per

Colorado River Commission.

Benefits

The benefits to be derived by the Upper Colorado River Basin from the construction and operation of the Colorado

River Storage Project and Participating Projects are very great. The country as a whole, and especially the Lower

Basin, will benefit greatly from the project. In view of the extent to which the country as a whole will benefit, through increased income taxes, opportunities for farm homes, increased production of irrigated crops, industrial

expansion and the reduction of the area's huge mineral potential, it is arguable that the United States of America would be justified in authorizing and constructing the project without regard for reimbursement by the project's direct beneficiaries. However, no such proposal is contem-plated, as is pointed out under Financial Aspects. It is esti-mated by the Bureau of Reclamation that, from the point of view of irrigation and power production alone, the

pro-ject will produce benefits to the nation in excess of

$59,000,000 per year and that it has a benefit-cost ratio of

1.8 to 1.00. In making these estimates, no consideration was given to the values of sediment retention, flood control, fish and wildlife conservation, recreation, and the develop-ment of mineral resources. In other words, the Bureau has leaned over backwards to be conservative in its estimate of annual benefits from the project. We believe that these

annual benefits will more than three times exceed the project's annual costs.

No attempt has been made to evaluate the special bene-fits of the project to the Lower Basin. Certain it is, how-ever, that, when you consider the advantages to the Lower Basin from the point of view of the hold-over storage that

will be provided; from the point of view of the hydro-electric power to be produced; and from the point of view of lengthened useful life of the Boulder Canyon Project,

you are bound to consider that the Lower Basin, too, has

an immense stake in the prompt authorization of the

proj-ect. About 13 0,000,000 tons of soil from the Upper

Colorado River Basin are deposited each year in Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam. The Colorado River Storage Project can largely put a stop to this and, consequently, can add

immeasurably to the useful life of the Boulder Canyon

Project and thus to the future well-being of Los Angeles

and Lower Basin States drawing upon the Colorado River

System. Hence it is, that all of the Colorado River Basin States ought to be allied with us in our efforts to secure

the authorization of the Colorado River Storage Project

and Participating Projects .

•

G) MOON LAK(

UPPER COLORADO

RIVER BASIN