WSP10102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o ~ w , .;.]'.. Ul i-- ...., ,,' i.:. ", ..... , " ',', "",. ,. :,. ^' ,'- . c' . ','.. ..';01'._ .I:,. .",0"', ". .~ .>:.:' '..", .' :;' ; ~: ". . . ..{.;.',t. '." .' <..... ~' ., ~ ~ . .' . . ", re" '"," -'(. '>",. "',' >.: ':,"." I 'I RECORD OF PROCEEDING il attended the meeting to answer specific questions propounded by Congressman Evans a.nd the members of the Board. Colonel Hottenroth stated he was concerned about the misunderstanding which seems to exist regarding the Flood Control Law. and reported that the Law requires Ule Corps to make recommendations regarding projects and it is then up to Congress to either approve the recommendations or to amend or modify them. He also related the difference between projects containing reservoirs and projects which are purely flood control. anc;J channelization. He said the Reservoir Law provides for land acquisition and relocation .at government ex- pense~ whereas the local flood control and channelb.ation requires these items to be local responsibilities. Upon questioning, he acknowledged that there could be a re- lationship between a 75 mile ~hannel and a reservoir relative to the beneficiaries.. but that any modification in the program would have to come from Congress rather than from his office. ,I 'I , " Mr. Redmond stated he also shares the concern over the misunderstandings and re- ferred to Section 3 of the 1936 Flood Control Act, which provides that all suggested projects must contain specific activities. He said that in the past Colorado Springs and Pueblo had paid for their share of specific projects and reported that in certain water salvage projects in New Mexico the Secretary of Interior was directed to negotiate repayment contracts if he could identify the beneficiaries. When he could not~ there were no obligations for reimbursement imposed upon beneficiaries and agencies involved. I I Mr. Nichols asked whether or not the channelization program might lend itself to a "staging construction". Colonel Hottenroth responded that the construction of this si:t.e of a project could be spread with purchases of right of way and relocations spread over the life of the project. Mr. Redmond responded that ii the District submits a letter of intent, 'and the project is authorized, no local funds will be re- quired until the pre-engineering work is accomplished and actual construction plans developed. ~n- the event the local sponsor is unable to acquire the right of way within five years.. the project would then be de-authorized. !, Mr. Beise inquired regarding the relationship to reservoirs such as Chatfield, Mt. Carbon and others where local sponsors are not required because the bene- ficiaries cannot be determined. Colonel Hottenroth responded that it is difficult to apply the same criteria to all projects and each must be considered on its own merits taking into consideration population~ distance.. area to be served.. etc.. i Young reported that in 1936 a very extensive flood study was accomplished by the Soil Conservation Service. In 1939, the Corps of Army Engineers worked with the Soil Conservation Service on the report and identified that the Fountain River area 1s susceptible to severe flood damage because of the geographic and geological nature of the Fountain River drainage area. He suggested that the Corps recon- sIder the Colorado Springs and Fountain Valley areas to determine specific areas which are susceptible to fiood damage because of continued development.. and also specific projects which might reduce the posaibillly of this damage. Thomson asked how many local sponsors had failed to meet the five year requirement and Mr. Redmond responded that within the Albuquerque district approximately four had failed to provide the necessary funding. !I :' President Nichols thanked tbe Corps of Army Engineers officials for atteoding the meeting and stated that the Board would continue its research on the matter. ,I COMMITTEE REPORTS; -3- I ,.