85th Congress, 1st Session: Upper Arkansas Basin Project

Q

OP I

85th

CONGRESS, 1st SESSION

H, R.

THE UPPER ARKANSAS BASIN

PROJECT

Tr..is bill would. aut~-:.orize the Upper Arkansas Basin project and concerns

itself only Hith those features of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project

(H

,

R

,

594)

relati?;<; to the conservation, development and use of the ,:aters of the

Ar

-kansas River i~ Colorado.

It would eli::iinate the costly and uneconoraic transmountain diversion and power features of the Fryingpa.n-Arl':ansas project. This is in conformity with the positions taken by both the Bureau of the Budget (R. Doc.

187,

p2) and the De:!.)a.rtment of .Agricul.ture

(H.

Doc.

187,

p.

169)

T"ne ,·ater suppl;· o:'.' foe Arl~sas River aver3.€eS l,

143,

000

acre feet per a..'lnU.'":l at Pueblo: The tra.csmountain d.ive:..·sion soug:-:.t to be made by the ?ryi:1mn;1.h-Arkans.!s nro.ject l'ould add on~r

66, 200

acrc-::eet per :,·ear to this. The u.,.mer Ar~ar..s~s BLsin ~reject ,:ould. prov:de

92,000

acre-feet at a cost of

$58,000,000

,·:tic.'-1 inclua.es over

$16,ooo,

ooo

for ::m.nicinal \·:~ter deli·,ery syste::.s \:hie:: the Gover~-"'1ent rx..:· not build itself. T:te neas:u-e c.lso "Orovicies "!or valuable :::lood

control,

~:::-:.e Fry:llb,xm-Ar:Gm.sas 'T)roject t-•ould. ".>robably involve a cost of [;.t least

$175,000,000

at present d:::::, nrices. ~hat

:t

could successfully be bailt for this,

::.1

vie,·; of the questio:1able open cruuls plo.n.~eci. io:: t>e h:gh alt:tud.es

:::.volvecl, is 7er;· doubt::ul, i:i:_e Ur:roer Arkansas Bas:'..?1 p::-oject, by elimine.ti~ the c...:"oious traasnom!tain <ii version ~no. :p0\:e1· fen turcs, p::.-esents L bill i:i-vol vir..g onl~- one-thirci of the cost a~d st:!.ll n:.·o\•.:.c.:116

t,·:o

thirds of the \:ater.

Q Q

PI

2

-The Upper Arkansas Basin bill presents

a

fea

sible project providing not

only a supplemental ,-,ater supl)'.cy' for irrigation but water for munici!,>al

uses and flood control as well· It would cost about

$50-00 per acre as

opposed to the

$219.00 per acre construction cost of the

Fryingpan-Arkansas

project -

a

project to provide a supplenenta.1 water supply of

only

·5

of an acre-foot of water a

year

for

309,000 acres.

It

avoids

the great cost to the ta.xpBiY'ers of lost interest which the Bureau plan would

impose. It

provides for a project within the existing reclamation law

and should thus

qualify

for

ready

acceptance, assuring the people of the

Arkansas Valley a

~jor

water development at an ear'.cy' date for their needs.

WN/rh