85TH CONGRESS } HOUSE OF REPRESE~TATIVES { fdSession
REPORT No. 2427
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO
AucusT 4, 1958.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. ASPINALL, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 13523]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 13523) to authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance by the Secretary of the Interior of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project, Colorado, having considered the same, report favorably thereon wit.bout amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
This legislation would authorize the construction and operation of the multiple-purpose Fryingpan-Arlrnnsas project for the purposes of furnishing supplemental irrigation water and municipal water, con-trolling floods on the Arkansas River, supplying electric power and energy, and for other incidental purposes. Supplemental irrigation water would be made available for approximately 322,000 acres of land through the transmountain diversion annually of an average of 69,200 acre-feet, the conservation of flood flows, the reregulation of winter flows, and the reuse of return flows. About 20,500 acre-feet of \rnter would be made available to meet tho rapidly expanding municipal water needs of Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and other Arkan-sas Yalley towns. Operation of tho project for flood control would prevent a large part of the flood damages which under present
condi-tions occur between Pueblo and the existing John Martin Reservoir. The hydroelectric plants and related facilities would provide over a. half billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy annually to meet the expanding power needs in the area. In addition, the project would provide sediment control, stream pollution abatement, and fish and wildlife benefits.
NEED
The waters of the upper Arkansas River Ba':lin are presently over appropriated, resultmg m '>erious loss in crop production on the presently irrigated farmland. Supplemental water supplies are neces-sary to stabilize the agricultural economy in the area The 322 000 acres which would benefit from this project now have an inadeq~ate or undependable r;;upply of water.' Numerous irrigation ditches ':1ave
no water until May and many have no water after early August.
Pumping from ground water to supplement surface supplies has been expanded to the limit of available recharge. Crop losses on irrigated lands have been severe in recent years with the irrigatrd area unable to produce sufficient livestock feed for its owD use. The diminished agricultural economy ha':l had a serious impact, upon the business,
employment, and income in the Arkansas Valley towns.
Municipal water needs in the valley have become critical. Dimin-ishing supplies together with population growth in Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and the other valley to"'l"ns have contributed to this critical water supply situation. Transmountain diversion is tho only source of any appreciable amount of water to meet the':le municipal needs except to divert the already short ai;ricultural water to municipal use and furihor disrupt the a[?ricultural economy of the area.
Floods in the upper Arkansas ;River Valley annually threaten the loss of property and discourage i:µvcstment, and the additional flood protection which would be provi1ed by ihis project is badly needed. 'T'he needs for electric power and energy in the project area are
expanding rapidly and ihe additional supplies from ibis project would
help meet this demand for additional electric energy.
Sediment control, pollution conirol, protection of fish and wildlife, and additional recreational opportunities are also needs in the project area which will be improved by the construction of this project.
In summary, the most prcssin[p and immediate needs of the upper Arkansas Valley can be met, by construction and operation of the
Fryingpan-Arkansas project as recommended in this legislation.
BACKGROUND
'l'he Fryingpan-Arkansas project has been under study by the Department of the Interior for many years-the first studies dating back to 1936. The Dcpariment completed its planning report on ihe project in 1951, and after its review by the States of the Colorado River Basin and a!Iected Federal agencies it was submitted to Congress in 1953, and was printed as Hous«:j Document 187, 83d Congress. The DepaJ·iment at that time recommrnded construciion of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project and since that time has continued to press for its authorization. The project has had the full approval of the State of Colorado since the operating principles were agreed to in January 1951.
In
addition to the legislation irt the present Congress, consideration was given to legislation to authorize ihe Fryingpan-Arkansas project in the 83d Congress and the ~4th Congress. Extensive hearings have been held. All aspects of the project have been thoroughly con-sidered. Authorizing legislatiorf passed the Senate in both the 83d and 84th Congresses and has also passed the Senate in the presentCongress. Authorizing legislation was favorably reported by this
committee in both the 83d and 84th Congresses, and by this report is again favorably reported. The President has specifically recom-mended enactment of legislation authorizing this project in his last
several budget messages to the Congress.
AMENDMENTS
The committee amended the legislaiion as originally introduced
(H. R. 594) in several respects. The amendments were designed primarily to give additional protection to the western slope and the Colorado River Basin States with respect to their rights to the use of Colorado River water. They are all incorporated in the present bill, H. R. 13523.
An amendment was adopted which specifically limits tho amount of water to be exported from the Colorado River system to 2,352,800 acre-feet over any consecutive 34-year period or an average of 69,200 acre-feet a year. Another amendment makes it clear that the Aspen Reservoir on the western slope shall be operated in such a way that there is no impairment of existing or prospective beneficial consump-tive uses of water in the Colorado River Basin. The original bill was also amended to provide for construction of an additional small reservoir on the Fryingpan River to assist in the preservation and propagation of fish life of that river. Another amendment requires the project to be operated so as not to adversely affect the grazing operations in the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan River Basins. A new
subsection was added specifically directing the Secretary of the
Interior to comply with all the applicable provis:ons of the compacts and acts which make up the so-called "law of the river" and in the event of failure of the Secretary to so comply the legislation permits any State of the Colorado River Basin to bring an action in the
Supreme Court of the United States.
In addition to the so-called "protective" amendments several other amendments were adopted. One of these provides for payments to school districts of their increased costs, both for operation and ad-ditional space, resulting from the consiruction activities in the area. These payments, however, would be diminished by any other Federal financial assistance and by the additional tax revenues received by the districts by reason of project activities. Another amendment provides for cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the administration of the recreational aspects of the project. The formula for determining interest rate to be paid on municipal water and power allocations was modified to make it consistent with the formula contained in the Colorado River Storage Project Act. Other minor and clarifying amendments were adopted.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND PLAN OF OPERATION
The Fryingpan-Arkansas project is a self-contained multiple-purpose development wherein each function is related and contri:rntcs to the support of the overall project and its feasibility. It would utilize water to which Colorado has legal right by interstate compact and in a manner which has been agreed upon by the State of Colorado and by both eastern slope and western slope representatives as
evi-4
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADOdenced by the detailed operating principles which are made a part of the legislation by reference.
The construction of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project would not imply a commitment for developing future water supplies in the Colorado River Basin for diversioljl to the Arkansas River Basin and the legislation specifically limits the amount of water which m~y be diverted for project purposes. The division annually of an average of 69,200 acre-feet combined with the regulation of winter flows, the reuse of return flows, and the conservation of flood flows would in-crease the water supplies annually in the Arkansas Valley an average of about 185,000 acre-feet. This amount would furnish supplemental water for approximately 322,000 acres of farmland and would furnish 20,500 acre-feet of water for municipal use.
The power installations would total 123,900 kilowatts from which an estimated 505 million kilowatt-hours of electric energy would be
generated annually. '
The project works would consist of the following:
(a) A system of about 50 miles of covered canals and tunnels on the western slope of the Continental pivide, for the collection of water from Hunter Creek and Fryingpap River, tributaries of the Roaring Fork River;
(b) Aspen Reservoir, with an q,ctive capacity of 28,000 acre-feet, near the town of Aspen on the western slope, to provide replacement water and water for future use i~ meeting Lhe demands in western
Colorado; I
(c) A reservoir on the Fryingpan' River having a capacity of approxi-mately 5,000 acre-feet to provide for the preservation and propagation of the fishlife of the Fryingpan RiiVer;
(d) The Fryingpan-Arkansas tvnnel, about 6 miles in length, for diverting water collected on the western slope to the eastern slope;
(e) The Sugar Loaf Reservoir Ion the eastern slope in the upper Arkansas Basin, enlarged from its'present capacity of 17,000 acre-feet to 117 ,000 acre-feet for storage and regulation of water imported from
the western slope; 1
(j) The Snowden diversion dam on the Adrnnsas River above Snow-den, Colo., and the Snowden diversion canal which would convey waLer from the Arkansas River to the eµlarged Twin Lakes Reservoir;
(g) The Twin Lakes Reservoir in the upper Arkansas Basin, a few miles south of Snowden, Colo., enlarged from its present active capac-ity of 56,000 acre-feet to 260,000 acre-feet, for storage and regulation of water imported from the westerr{ slope by the Fryingpan-Arlrnnsas diversion, water imported by d isting Twin Lakes diversion, and water diverted from the Arkansasi River by the Snowden Canal;
(h) The Pueblo Reservoir on the Arkansas River west of Pueblo, Colo., with a capacity of 400,000 dcre-feet to store water for irrigation and municipal use and for flood c9n trol; .
(i) A project power system cor1i!-prisi11g 60 miles of canals, 7 power-plants having an installed capacity'of 123,900 kilowatts, 7 switchyards, 9 subsLations, and about 400 miles of transmission lines; and
(i) Specific municipal water delivery facilities for furnishing additional municipal water to Pui:iblo, Colorado Springs, and several Arkansas Valley towns, which delivery facilities would be constructed by the United States only after' construction by the communities themselves proves infeasible.
I
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO
5
An important feature of the project is the 28,000 acre-foot Aspen Reservoir on the western slope. This reservoir will serve to assure present and potential western slope water users that the proposed diversion. of water to the eastern slope will not deprive them of water to the use of which rights now exist or arc hereafter acquired pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado. This assurance is set out in the 1'.ather elaborate set of operating principles for this and other features of the project which is incorporated in the legislation by reference. These operating principles will constitute a portion of the law of the project and will not be subject to change except by further act of Congress or, as provided in the bill, by the Secretary's adoption of modifications recommended by a commission composed of repre-sentatives of the State of Colorado, both western slope and eastern slope interests, and the United States.
COSTS AND REPAYMENT
The present estimated cost of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project is $159,287,000, not including the small reservoir on the Fryingpan River, which adds an additional estimated $1,500,000. On the basis of the separable costs-remaining benefits method of cost allocation ~he $159,287,000 is tentatively allocated as follows:
Estimated project cost_ _____________________________________ $159, 287, 000 Repayable interest during construction________________________ 2, 545, 000
Total investment _________ ~ __________________________ _
Less nonreimbursable costs:
Flood controL ________________________________________ _ Fish and wildlife ________________ 1 _____________________ _
Balance reimbursable __________
0
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Reimbursable costs:
¥i~:;ion_=====
=
== ==
== == =
=
==
==
=
=
,
=== == == === ===
== =
==
=
==
=
:Municipal water supply ________________________________ _ Municipal water delivery system _____________________ ! __ _
Total ______________________________________________ _
I Allocation to.fish and wildlife is limited to scparal)le costs.
161, 832, 000 17, 227, 000 1 2, 155, 000 142, 450, 000 67, 069, 000 51, 605,000 10, 037, 000 13, 739, 000 142, 450, 000
The total cost of the reservoir on the Fryingpan River would be allocated to fish and wildlife and would be nonreimbursable.
The allocations to both power and municipal water would be r·epaid with interest and the allocation to irrigation would b.e -repaid without interest. The costs allocated to flood control and fish and wildlife would be nonreimbursable. The repayment analysis indicates that the power investment could be retired in a 44-year period follow-ing completion of construction. The municipal water supply system investment could be repaid in 48 years following completion of con-struction and the municipal water delivery system investment could be repaid in 50 years following the completion of that system. The irrigation investment could be retired in 54 years following the com-pletion of construction from revenues paid by the irrigation bene-ficiaries and from the application of net power and municipal revenues after the power allocation had been repaid with interest. The details
.... -.--·
--
-
·--· ___ "_...,._.._,...,~-- .-
-" ...-
... -·:, ...-
-
... -... _...,_of expected annual net revenues and a summary of repayment are set out in the following two tables:
Details of annual net revenues-function and source of revenues
Irrigation and district:
Project water (51,200 acre-feet, at $5.40) ____________________ _ Twin Lakes service (12,500 acre-feet, at $3) __________________ _
Regulation of winter water (74,000 acre-feet, at $2.25) ________ _ District tax (average over repayment period) 1 _______________ _
SubtotaL---
--Less operation, maintenance, and replacement ________________ _ Net irrigation revenues (rounded) ________________________ _
Power: $276, 500 37, 500 166, 500 477, 200 957, 700 -88, 000 869, 700 370,000,000 kilowatt-hours, at 6.5 mills _______________________ 2, 4.05, 000 97,200,000 kilowatt-hours, at 3.5 mills________________________ 340, 200
SubtotaL ___ --- --- -- -- --- ____ --________________________ 2, 745, 200 Less operation, maintenance, and replacement _________________ -870, 000 Net power revenues (rounded) ____________________________ 1, 875, 200 Municipal and industrial water supply:
Municipal supplies (20,500 acre-feet, at $5.40) ________________ _ Storage of C. F. and I. water (4,000 acre-feet, at $2) __________ _
Portion of district tax 1 (applied to repayment of municipal water supply) _________________________________________________ _ Subtotal _____________________________________________ _ Less operation, maintenance, and replacement_ _______________ _ Net municipal water revenues (for supply) _________________ _
110, 700 8, 000 223, 000 341, 700 -13, 000 328, 700 = = = = = Municipal and industrial water delivery system:
Deliv$29.40) ery of water to Colorado ________________________________________________ Springs (10,000 acre-feet, at _ Delivery of water to va.lley towns (7,500 acre-feet, at $53.20) __ _
293, 900 391, 500
SubtotaL___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 685, 400
Less operation, maintenance, and replacement_ ________________ -201, 000
Net municipal water revenue (for delivery system) 484,400 Total average annual net project revenue ___________________ 3, 558, 000
t Tho dlstrlct tox would be reallzerl from ad valorcm tax of l mill levied by the conservancy dlstrlct on ta,able property within the district boundaries. 'rhe 1056 a~sessed value or property within the contem·
plated project wa~ $395 million. lt has been esthnatod that the average annual Increase In assessed valua-tion wo·1ld equal 2 percent of the 1956 valuation. An average or $40,000 per year has been allowed for dis -trict expense.
Repayment summary
Estimated construction costs ___ _ Tentative allocation of costs:
Irrigation (reimbursable) ________________ - - _____________ _ Municipal water:
Basic project costs (reimbursable)--- -Delivery system (reimbursable) _____________________ _ Power (reimbursable) __ - ________ -- _____________________ _ Flood control (nonreimbursable) _________________________ _ Fish and wildlife (nonreimbursable) ______ -- -_____ - _ - -____
-Total reimbursable ____________________ -________ - ____ _
Total nonreimbursable _______________ --- __ --- --- ---
-Estimated annual net revenues:
Irrigation ___________ -- ________________ - ----_ ---- __
-Po,ver ________________________________________________ _
Municipal water:
Water sales _______________________________________ _
Delivery system ________________ _ Estimated repayment periods:
.-Irrigation investment __________________ -- ___ ---- - - ---__ _ Municipal water investment ___ -~- _________ --- ---__ -- -Power in vestment _____________________________ - - - - ____ _ Current utlmateg $159, 287, 000 67,069,000 9, 692,000 13, 291,000 49,853,000 17, 227,000 2, 155,000 139,905,000 19, 382,000 I 869, 700 1, 875, 200 328, 700 484, 410 Year& 2 54 2 48 2 44
• Average-year revenues.
• After construction Is completed and revenues have been brought up to normal. Power net revenues
after the power allocation Is repaid with interest, will bo applled to assist in retiring the irrigation invest· ment.
IN'l'ERSTATE CONSIDERA'IIONS
The State of Colorado is a party to the Colorado River compact of 1922 and the upper Colorado River Basin compact of 1948. The consent of the Congress has been given to both of these documents. Under the 1948 compact, Colorado's share of the waters apportioned to the upper basin States is 51.75 percent. The Colorado River water proposed to be diverted by the Fryingpan-Arkansas project is about 2 percent of Colorado's share of the upper basin's apportionment. The proposed project has been approved by the Upper Colorado River Commission.
Section 7 of H. R. 13523 specifically provides, as a matter of caution, that the use of water from the Colorado River system under this project shall be subject to applicable provisions of the Colorado River compact, the upper Colorado River Basin compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act, the Colorado River Storage Project Act, and the Mexican Water Treaty. It also provides that none of the waters exported from the Colorado River Basin by this project shall be made available for use outside of the State of Colorado by exchange or substitution. Colo-rado's obligations under the Arkansas River compact remain un-changed. Finally, the bill provides that it shall not be construed to aid or prejudice any right or claim of right to the use of the waters of the Colorado River system or as an interpretation of any of the documents referred to above.
COMMIT'rEE CONCLUSIONS
The committee concludes that the Fryingpan-Arkansas project is sound from an engineering, economic, and financial standpoint and
that the project is urgently needed to supplement the supply of water
8
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADOthe Arkansas Valley. The legislative proposals made herein are in
general accord with the established policy followed by Congress in connection with other Federal reclamation projects.
The committee concludes that the bill protects the western slope and the Colorado River Basin States with respect to their use of
Colorado River water. The committee believes that such water uses
would not be impaired by the operation of the project. The
com-mittee concludes that the Fryingpan-Arkansas development is a
self-contained project and does not depend in any way on further
trans-mountain diversion of water or on further development and that
enactment of this legislation would in no way constitute a
commit-ment to later authorization of any transmountain diversion project.
The operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project would be subject
to the power preference provisions and the excess lands provisions of
reclamation law.
REPORTS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS
The reports of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture on H. R. 594, the legislation as originally introduced, follow:
DEPARTMEN'l.' OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C., March 20, 1957.
Hon. CLAIR ENGLE,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
1\1y DEAR MR. ENGLE: This is in response to your request for an
expression of the views of this Department on H. R. 594, a bill to
authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance by the
Secre-tary of the Interior of tho Fryingpan-Arkansas project, Colorado.
We recommend that tho bill be ~nacted.
H. R. 594 is virtually identical with H. R. 412, 84th Congress, as
it was reported by your committee on February 6, 1956. Enactment
of legislation to authorize construdion of this project has been
recom-mended by the President in bis message accompanying the budget for
the fiscal year 1958. In that message, the President said: "I urge once
again the prompt enaetmen t of legislation which will enable the
Fryingpan-Arkansas multiple-purpose project to get underway in the
fiscal year 1958." In the budget itself (p. 803) it is pointed out that
the 11dministration proposes to initiate construction of the Frying-pan-Arkansas Project during the next fiscal year if it is authorized and that the budget includes an item of $2 million to be requested for
this purpose. ·
A rather full description of the engineering features of this proposed
undertaking/of the purposes which it will serve, and of the benefits which will be associated with it a11e readily available in Senate
Docu-ment No. 106, 82d Congress, and in the report of the Department of the
Interior on the project which was submitted on June 9, 1953, to the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representa-tives in accordance with the provisions of section 9 (a) of the Recla-mation Project Act of 1939 and printed as House Document 187, 83d Congress. The present report notes certain modifications in the engineering plan for the project set out in House Document 187
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO
9
and includes revisions in its estimated costs and in its financial and
economic analyses to bring them more nearly up to date. It also
proposes certain modifications in the repayment program set out in
House Document 187.
For convenient reference by the committee, the purposes and
ex-pected accomplishments of the project may be summarized thus:
The project contemplates (1) diversion through the project works
from the Roaring Fork River Basin in western Colorado to the
Ar-kansas River Basin in eastern Colorado of approximately 69,000
acro-feet of water per annum; (2) diversion through the existing works
of the Twin Lakes Company of about 15,000 acre-feet per annum over
and above what that company now diverts; (3) storage on the eastern
slope for the waters thus imported and, in addition, for eastern slope
flood waters and winter flows averaging 50,000 and 93,000 acre-feet
per annum, respectively. This water will make possible the furnishing
and supplemental irrigation water for 322,000 acres of irrigated land
not having an adequate water supply and will supply expanding
needs for municipal, domestic, and industrial water in the upper Arkansas Basin. The project will prevent a large part of the flood
damages which, under present conditions, occur between Pueblo and
John Martin Reservoir. In accomplishing these primary purposes
of the project, works will be provided for the generation of an average
of 505 million kilowatt-hours of hydroelectric power annually.
An important feature of the project is tho 28,000 acre-foot Aspen Reservoir on the western slope. This reservoir, the cost of which is included in the cost of the project, will serve to assure present and
potential western slope water users that tho proposed diversion of
water to the eastern slope will not deprive them of water to the use
of which for domestic, irrigation and ma.nufacturing purposes
(in-cluding power generation in the case of existing rights) rights now exist or are hereafter acquired pursuant to the laws of the Sta.te of
Colorado. A rather elaborate set of operating principles for this and
other features of tho project, in the formulation of which representa-tive spokesmen for various interests within the State of Colorado
participated and which was approved by the Colorado Water
Con-servation Board, is incorporated in the bill by reference. These
operating principles will, accordingly, constitute a portion of the
law of the project and will not be subject to change save by further act of Congress or, as provided in section 3 of the bill, by the
Secre-tary's adoption of modifications thereof recommended by a
com-mission composed of representatives of the contemplated Eastern
Colorado Conservancy District, the Colorado River Water
Con-servation District, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the
United States.
After the publication of Senate Document No. 106 the Department
of the Interior reviewed tho project, and certain modifications in the
repayment proposals contained in that document ha.ve been
recom-mended. These are included in our report to the President of April
30, 1953, which is one of the documents comprising the report which was sent to the Congress as noted above, on June 9, 1953. Since
that time, additional studies have been conducted in the field, based upon later construction cost estimates, new policies on cost
alloca-tions, revisions in the estimates of project revenues (especially those
derived from power and tho conservancy district tax), and a now
Hon. CLAIR ENGLE,
DEPAUTMEN'l' OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D. 0., April 3, 1957 Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
House of Representatives.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN ENGLE: We would like to present the follow-ing voluntary reporL on H. R. 594, a bill to auLhorize the construction, operation, and maintenance by the Secretary of the Interior of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project, Colorado.
The President in his budget me.ssage of January 1957 urged enact-ment of legislatior authorizmg the Fryingpan-A.rkamas project. This Department has no objection to H. R. 594, but docs object to section 6 unless amended.
Section 6 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to plan, construct, opcrat~, and maintain public recrrational facilities on (1) lands withdrawn for the development of the Fryingpan-.Akansas project including national-forest land and (2) lands acquired for the developmrnt of the project or for recreational purposes but located within national-forest boundariPs.
Section 6 would also authorize the Secretary of the Interior to (1) acquire lands within national-forest boundaries for recreational pur-posrs in connection with the reclamation project, (2) withdraw public lands from entry or other disposition under the public land laws for recreational purposes in connection with the project, and (3) dispose of such lands to Federal, State and local governmental agencies by lease, transfer, exchange or conveyance.
The authorization to the Secretary of the Interior to plan, construct, operate and maintain recreational facilities on national-forest lands within reclamation withdrawals in connection with the Fryingpan-Arkansas project would result in duplication of authority between the Departments of the Interior and .Agriculture, and would lead to confusion unless clarified. The Secretary of Agriculture now has authority to manage these national-forest lands, so long as such use does not conflict with major project purposes and is developing and administering them, not only with respect to recreation but also for timber, grazing and other resources. This Department is developing the national forests under a policy of integrated multiple use, whereas the authority that would be granted the Secretary of the Interior under this section would pertain only to recreation.
Under a memorandum of understanding entered into in January 1948, between the Bureau of Reclamation of the Depa.rtment of the Interior and the Forest Service of this Department, it was agreed that the Forest, Service would continue to administer national-forest lands within a reclamation withdrawal for nonroclamation purposes whenever such lands were not in actual use in connection with any reclamation works. This memorandum of understanding has pro-vided a satisfactory division of responsibility which should be con-tinued.
The Department of .Agriculture believes that it should administer the recreational facilities on n~tional-forest lands withdrawn for recrea-tion or for reclamarecrea-tion project purposes. It ob.iects to legislation which would give duplicating authority in this respect to the Secretary of tho Interior.
The Department of Agriculture also believes that within exterior boundaries of the national forests, non-national-forest lands withdrawn or acquired for reclamation purposes or for recreation in connection with reclamation projects and not needed for actual use in connection with reclamation works should become national-forest lands. These lands and the resources thereof should be administered by the Secre-tary of Agriculture, subject to project uses, as ordinary national-forest lands. This would include the recreational facilities thereon. We believe such lands can be most eff octively and economically adminis-tered as national-forest lands by the Department of Agriculture be-cause of their intermingling with nearby and adjoining national-forest ]ands and because they are of national-forest character.
The recommendations of this Department can be accomplished by adding a proviso to section 6. Starting on page 6, line 24, change the period to a semicolon and continue as follows:
"Provided, That all lands within the exterior boundaries of a national forest acquired for recreational or other project purposes which are not determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be needed for actual use in connection with the reclamation works shall become national-forest lands; Provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior shall make his determination hereunder with five years after approval of this Act or, in the case of individual tracts of land, within five years after their acquisition by the United States; and Provided further, That the authority contained in this section shall not be exercised by the Secretary of the Interior with respect to national-forest lands with-out the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture."
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ E. T. BENSO~, Secretary. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs recommends enact-ment of H. R. 13523.
MINORITY VIEWS OF HON. CLAIR ENGLE
I must oppose the enactment of the Fryingpan-Arkansas legisla.tion as reported by the committee on two counts. First, the project has no assured water supply and is, therefore, of doubtful physical feasibil-ity. Second, it does not adequately protect the rights and interests of the State of California or, for that matter, the rights and interests of the other lower basin States. I have not changed my position of not opposing projects in the Colorado River Basin if the rights of California to Colorado River water are adequately protected in the authorizing legislation and if such projects are economically and physically feasible. In my opinion, the Fryingpan-Arkansas project legislation reported by the committee fails to meet either requirement.NO ASSURED WA'l'ER SUPPLY
With regard to my first objection, a recent Colorado district court decree, plus amendments which the committee adopted to the legisla-tion, place the Fryingpan-Arkansas project water supply in jeopardy and the physical feasibility of the project in doubt.
On June 20, 1958, the Colorado district court at Glenwood Springs issued o. decree in favor of the West Divide and the Basalt projects of the Colorado River Water Conservation District which entitled these projects to conditional priorities to store and divert water from the Crystal, Fryingpan, and Roaring Fork Rivers. The priorities of right to the use of the water awarded by the decree are conditioned upc,:m beneficial use within a reasonable time.
The water awarded for the Basalt project is in direct conflict with the water required for the Fryingpan-Arkansas project. This means that the Fryi11gpan-Arkansas project does not have an assured water supply and will not have such a supply until this matter is settled in the courts. Until this matter is settled, the Fryingpan-Arkansas project is not physically feasible and it is not appropriate for Congress to authorize its construction.
Even without this conflict of water rights, it is doubtful whe'ther the Fryingpan-Arkansas project could be operated as intended under the restrictive language of the amendments adopted by the committee. The Department's plan calls for collecting and exporting to tho Arkansas Basin every drop of water available from the area above the collection system. In conflict with this plan is the committee amendment requiring the project to
be-so operated as not to deprive graziers of lands situated in the Roaring Fork or Fryingpan River Basins
* * *
of so much of the water which now reaches those lands as is reasonably necessary to support grazing operations thereon.With respect to this amendment, .Assistant Secretary of the Interior Aandahl in his letter of May 16 had this to sa,y:
We would prefer not to have amendment No. 4 adopted by the committee. We are unable to evaluate properly the effect on the project of a requirement that it be operated in
14
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO
such a manner as to assure that graziers on Federal lands in the Roaring Fork or Fryingpan River Basins shall not be deprived of such an amount of water "as is reasonably necessary to support grazing operations thereon at their average level since 1930
* * *."
It is not known how we could quantitatively establish the average grazing level since 1930. Also, our project-design plans do not make provision for ,gates or other physical works on the collecting canals to distribute water to the grazing lands below.15
It is obvious that all the water in the collection area cannot be taken without adversely affecting the grazing operations.
Another amendment adopted by the committee states:
The Aspen Reservoir shall be so operated that there is no impairment
*
* *
of any prospective uses of water for irriga-tion and other beneficial consumptive-use purposes* * *
within the entire natural basin of the Colorado River in western Colorado* * *.
Assuming that Colorado will eventually use very drop of Colorado River water that it is entitled to and will still have need for additional water, which I believe is a reasonable assumption, it is hard for me to see how an average of 69,000 acre-feet annually can be diverted out of the Colorado River Basin without impairing some prospective use sometime in the future.
It is quite evident then, on the basis of the foregoing, that the Fryingpan-Arkansas project has no assured water supply until the matter involved in the recent Colorado district court decree has been settled. It is further quite evident that, even should that matter be settled in favor of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project, it is still doubt-ful whether the project could successdoubt-fully operate under the restrictive language placed in the bill. Construction would probably result in another Keyhole or Shadehill where storage has been provided with-out water to store.
LOWER BASIN S'l'ATES NO'l' PRO'l'ECTED
With respect to my second objection, I offered amendments which, had they been adopted, would have provided adequate protection to the lower basin States. I regret that my efforts to strengthen this legislation and make it acceptable to all the States of the Colorado River Basin were labeled as efforts to scuttle the bill and that the language I proposed was not considered on its merits.
We have learned tho hard way from our past experience that in any legislation, compacts or agreements involving the water rights of the several States the intent of the language must be made unmis-takably clear. The present suit in the Supreme Court, Arizona v. California, attests to this need. Language in the recently passed Colorado River Storage Act already is in dispute. This act was enacted only 3 years ago and already we have examples of misinter-pretation of the protective language which I insisted go into that act.
It is primarily for this latter reason that I proposed the amendments to the Fryingpan-Arkansas legislation. It seems to me perfectly ap-propriate to place language in this bill which is applicable to the Colorado River Basin as a whole. This is the first opportunity the committee and the Congress have had to consider the language in the Colorado River Storage Act in the light of its administration to date.
Now I would like to say a few words about Lhe maLLer of the quality
of waLer. The Colorado River compact staLed that, Lho existing
perfected rights to the beneficial use of the waters of the Colorado
River system were not to be impaired by the compact. Now if you
ruin the quality of the water you impair the right, just as much as if
you take away Lhe waLer. Therefore, when the compact says the
perfected rights are to be unimpaired, iL means unimpaired in quality
as well as quantity. There is no doubt but that continued
trans-mounLain diversion adversely affects the quality of the water
down-sLream.
Transmountain diversion projects, such as the Fryingpan-Arkansas take sweet, clear water at very high altiLudes, and as such diversions increase the water in the basin will become more and more saline. The exportation of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas project alone
may not have any great effect on the quality of water in the Colorado
River Basin; however, what bothers us in the lower basin is there seems to be no end to proposals for further diversion. At the time
the Colorado River compact was negotiated it was stated that the
upper basin States could not conceivably take more than 500,000
acre-feet of water a year by transmountain diversion. The State
of Colorado alone is now taking at least 500,000 aero-feet and the total transmountain diversions planned in tho upper basin run around
2Yi
to 3 million acre-feet.We believe we are entitled to some limitation on these Lransmountain diversions, and I offered an amendment to the Fryingpan-Arkansas legislation which would have required Colorado to limit its trans-mountain diversion of water to 20 percent of its allotment from the Colorado River. This amendment would have permitted the Frying-pan-Arkansas project to go ahead but would have prohibited further
transmountain diversion. The amendment wa.s not accepted.
Califor-nia passed an act limiting its use of Colorado River water. We believe
that Colorado and the other upper basin States should bo willing to limit, in the same way, transmountain diversions of water. Unless
there is some limitation imposed soon on further exportation of water
out of the basin all the States in the Colorado River Ba.sin will suffer. Several members of the committee accompanied me on a trip tlu·ough the Imperial Valley last foll and saw firsthand tho effects of the heavy concentration of salts in the water. It is obvious that irrigation
cannot continue with water containing IX tons of salt per acre-foot,
thP estimated concentration in \\ atC'r received in the Imperial Valley in recent years. In 1956 alone something over 4 million tons of salt
came into Imperial Valley with irrigation water.
One of our difficulties has been to determine accurfttely tho effect upon quality of water of all uses of watC'r of the Colorado River
system. I would think that evC'ry State in the basin would want
and should have this information. Yet an amendment which I offered
to strengthen language in the Colorado River Storage Project Act and direct thC' studies to provide this information was rejected.
In conclusion I want to rC'iLcratc that in my judgment enactment of the Fryingpan-Arkansas legislation as reported by the committee not
only would authorize cousLruction of a project without an assured
water supply but also would adversely affect the rights and interests
of California and the other lower basin States.
CLAIR ENGLE.
MINORITY VIEWS
The following summary of views, in opposition to the enactment of
this bill, is submitted as a minority report:
1. Tho project is the forerunner of the huge Gunnison-Arkansas
project.
The Bureau of Reclamation's project planning report (1950)
desig-nated the Fryingpan project as the "initial development of the
poten-tial Gunnison-Arkansas project." The Gunnison-Arkansas project
would probably involve a construction cost approaching $1 billion.
.Although it is stated that the Fryingpan project would stand by
itself, and the bill indicates that the Gunnison-Arkansas project is not
contemplated, it seems probable the people of the Arkansas Valley will not and cannot be satisfied with the very small amount of irri-gation water furnished by the project (one-half acre-foot per acre or less on the area to be served) and will demand the Gunnison-Arkansas project which, according to previous Bureau reports, would divert upward of 900,000 acre-feet annually from the Colorado River Basin or about 10 times the amount of water proposed for diversion by the Fryingpan-.Arkansas project.
2. The project is the same proposal that has been previously
rejC'cLed for consideration twice by the House of RcpresentaLivC's.
Bills to authorize the Fryingpan-Arlrnnsas project have heretofore come up for consideration before the House of Representatives in
both the 83d and 84th Congrcsses-H. R. 236, 83d Congress, and H. R.
412, 84th Congress. In each case, by voting down the rule, the House
rejected consideration of the project as without justification.
3. The project is of questionable engineering feasibility, is financially
unsound, and lacks economic justification.
(a) The excessive cost of the transmountain diversion feature of
the proposed project-$59 million to develop an annual supply of
66,200 acre-feet of watC'r for irrigaLion and municipal use-is
unwar-ranted and without economic justification.
The cost, to the Federal Government would be about $36 per
acre-foot; or about 6 times the estimated project revenue for irrigation
waler and over 2 times that for municipal waLC'r supply. ThC' supply
for irrigation furnished by the transmountain diversion would be only about 2 inches or one-sixth of an acre-foot per acre. The large
cost, of such a small supply would far outweigh its value.
(b) The $50 million power dcvC'lopme11t features of the project are
of highly questionable financial feasibility. 'l'he cost of power from 5 of the 7 plants would be materially greater than the assumed price
of 6.5 mills per kilowatt-hour. The estimated power output and
power revenues from the plants are unsupported and appeor
exaggerated. Fmthermore, there is no assurance Lbitt tho power could
be sold at the required rate of 6.5 mills or more per kilowaLL-hour over
the protracted rC'paymenL period of about 60 years, consickring the
availability of other competing sources of power and possihlC'
obsolescence of hydroplants.
(c) ThC're is grave doubt as Lo the engineering fcasibiliLy of thC' Arkansas power canal-one of the major features of the proposed
hydroelcekic development. The project plans propose Lo construct
UllU 0!-'LU'li,l,t, l.,lllb UU.lll ll,i:) UJ.J. v_poJ..J. \.,-Cl,LJ.U.l \._l:ltlil.JUO...U..J -«i OCil.l.CiO Vl VIJOl..l CUUU.10
aggregating 60 miles in length) to couvey water to a series of 6
power-plants between the vicinity of Leadville ~nd Salida, located along the
canyon of the Arkansas River at elevat10ns of over 7,000 to nearly
10,000 feet above sea level in a rug~ed mountain region where, for
several months of the winter, severe ice and snow conditions prevail.
The practicability of operating an open canal under such conditions
is highly questionable. Under similar conditions on the Colorado-Big Thompson project in Colorado a few miles to the north, the Bureau of Reclamation found it necessary to substitute tunnels and covered
conduits for the open canals originally proposed. This change in plans
has been stated to be one of the major reasons why the construction
cost of that project to date has nearly quadrupled over the estimates
offered to Congress.
The Secretary of the Interior has reported that if covered conduits
are found to be requirrd, the total construction cost of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project would be incrensed about $64 million and that such an increase would render the project infeasible. An additional cost of $64 IPillion for the powrr development would raisr the total project
cost to $223 million or more- an increase of about 40 percent over the
Bureau's estimate.
In view of the foregoing, the rconomic justification and financial
fen.sihility of the powrr development as proposrd for the project is
highly questionable, which casts doubt on the fe~sibility of the entire
project.
(cl) The high cost of the irrigation features of the project-$217 per
acre construction cost for a suppkmen"Lal water supply of 0.5
acre-fcet per acre, which is equivalent to $1,156 per acre for a full water
supply- presents a serious question as to the justification for the
project as a Federal reclamation undertaking. As compared to this
cost, the average value of irrigated farmland in the area does not
exceed $225 per acre. If, as indicated by testimony of Bureau of
Reclamation witnesses in 1957, the service area "\\ err rrduced from
the originally proposed 322,000 acres to 270,000 acres or less, the cost
per n.ere would be increasrd proportionat<'ly by 10 percent or more.
There is no assurance that the irrigators could or would pay the
proposed rate of $5.40 per acre-foot for project water. (The project
planning report found that the irrigators would be able to pay only $3.60 per acre-foot.) Moreover, estimated repayments from con-servancy district taxes appear to be overoptimistic and not fully
assured. It appears improbable, therefore, that irrigation revenues
as estimated could or would be realized.
(e) The economic justification of the project is claimed on the basis
of an unrealistic evaluation of benefits and costs with benefits
esti-mated over a period of 100 yearst... which is highly speculative. Large
indirect benefits are included. The benefit-cost ratio on the
irriga-tion features of the project based on the estimated direct benefits
over a more realistic period of 50 years would be substantially less
than 1 to 1.
However, benefit-cost ratio is not sanctioned as a criterion for
economic justification of reclamation projects by existing reclamation
law, which reqm:es a showing of financial reimbursability. 4. The concealed Federal subsidy is unwarranted.
Existing reclamation law provides that the irrigation investment
shall be repaid interest free in 40 years, not including a permissible
(10VeJOpIDeTLl., v e.rlUl.l llUtJ \JV 0-;.,\,0Ci'IJU--...-.CV .J v,,_.,;a.,;,. ....---... -.... --- ~ . - 0 - - -- -~- - t. - ~
tice such repayment is made in approximately equal annual
install-ments.
Under the proposed repayment plan for the project, the starting of
repayment of 30 percent of the irrigation investm.en.t from power
revenues would be postponed for 40 to 50 years. Surh ~ renftyment
40 to 50 years in the future is in fact no repaym.011 t at all. It would
obviously greatly increase the subsidy from the Federal Treaswy in
interest costs on the funds aclva11ced that would have to be nfti~ out
of Federal taxes. The accumulated interest charges 0:'1. the funds
borr()wed by the Federal Government to defray the costs oft.he nroie:;t
allopated to irrigat,ion. could and would never be repaid from prnject
revenues and would have to be paid out of general taxes, eve-1
• though
the canital investments were eventually repaid. The result.in<.;
na-tional debt would keep on increasing indefinitely unless or until paid
off by general taxes.
The increase in the national debt resulting from the Federn.l suhsidy
in accumulated interest charges on the irrigation investrr.e:-t fl.t, t.he
end of the proposed repayment period of about 60 years ,. ould be
over $200 million, or more than 3 times thr original con.struction c0c;t
allocated to irrigation. This hidden subsidy would be about $700 per acre on the entire area of 309,000 acres Lo be served and about $3.700 per acre on an equivalent full water-supply basis.
Considering that the actual construction cost of the pronoc,,ed nroj-ect might be over $200 million, the renayment period would hnve to be materially extended with the result that the Federn.l suhc,,idy on
the irri<.;ation investment alone would probably be $400 million to
$500 JT'.ilfon.
5. The Arkansas River development features of the project appear to be a feasible reclamation undertaking which could be authorized
as a separate unit, excluding the costly and. uneconomic transmountain
diversion and power features of the project.
It appears from the report of the Bureau of Reclamation (H. Doc.
187, 83d Cong.) that the Arkansas River development fefitures of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project could be carried out independP.ntlv of the
proposed transmountain diversion features as a financially fefl.sible
undertaking undrr existing reclamation law. A capital cost of $50
million would cover the entire cost of such a development, inc1
uding the cost of muni('ipo.l water-supply clelivcry systems. The reim-bursable cost of the water supply itself aggregating 92,000 acre-feet a year would only be $19,699,000.
The Bureau's report indicates that the Arkansas River development
by itself would have substantial benefits. A large benefit would be
realized from the flood control provided by the Pueblo Reservoir.
In addition, the project could provide municipat water in the same
amount as estimated for the proposed proiect (namely, 20,500
acre-feet) as well as 71,500 acre-feet for supplemental irrigation, which
would materially relieve present shortages in supply.
The remainder of the project as proposed, including the
transmoun-tain diversion fratures and the power system and involving a cost of
about $110 million, should be deferred for further consideration of
questions of feasibility and economic justification. Such a procedure
would be in line with the recommendations originally made by both
the Budget Bureau and the Department of Agriculture in reporting
20
FRYINGPAK-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO6. The water supply is uncertain and existing water rights are
given no protection. '
Interests within the natural basin of the Colorado River on the west slope of Colorado (from which waters would be taken by this bill for transmountain diversion to the Arkansas River Basin) inter-posed objections to this bill and sought an amendment to protect their interests. Likewise, interests in the lower basin of the Colorado River who su,,.- a threat in this project and its potentialities sought amendments relating to limitations on the quantities diverted, effective sLudies as to the impact on the quality of water remaining in the basin, and permission to litigate should the Secretary of Interior violate the law of the river in the prosecution of this and other Federal Colorado River undertakings. These seemingly reasonable proposals were summarily rejected by the committee, thus leaving substantial interests without any of the protections they deemed essential to protect their water rights in the Colorado River system.
In addition, presumably in an effort to meet the request for some limitation on the amount of water which could be taken for this project, the committee adopted an amendment providing for the quantity the Reclamation Bureau says is needed but making the restriction applicable only on an average over a 34-year period. Your minority considers any project which depends upon an average water supply over a 34-year period to be indefensible. A period of 10 years, earlier adopted by the Subcommittee on Inigation and Reclamation, was rejPcted hefore the fnll committPe when tlw Interior Department acknowledged that such a limitation would probably render the project unworkable.
Finally, in view of the recent decree of the Colorado district court at Glenwood Springs, affecting the Fryingpan River and Eagle Creek, there appears to be some doubt as to whether the water supply required to effectuate the purposes of the proposed project is in fact available over any given period of time. Motions to defer final action on this project until the Interior Department could study and report on these decrees were flatly rejected. In the light of the foregoing, your minority considers it likely that even if the water needful to this project is available, a factor in real question, the rights of those in the natural basin of the river, will be needlessly exposed by the failure of the committee to adopt necessary protections.
7. The proposed project is unsound and without justification. H. R. 13524, 85th Congress, should be rejected by the House of Re-presentatives.
In view of the many serious questions regarding engineering and financial feasibility and economic justification of the project as pro-posed as well as those relating to water supply and rights, the author-ization of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project is unwarranted. We urge that H. R. 13524, 85th Congress, be rejected by the House of Repre-sentatives.
