My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4100
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
4100
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:28 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 12:55:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
4100
Author
Gibert, S.
Title
Water Policy and Development of the Colorado River.
USFW Year
1973.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The Upper Basin: Failure and Success <br /> <br />The Blot or.. the Bureau's Record <br /> <br />As mentioned earlier, the rest of the basin was not idle <br />in the development of their water resources. One unique p~an <br />was attempted by a group of fruit growers of Colorado's rich <br />Uncompaghre Valley in the late 1800's. <br />Egged on by railroad land agents, the valley had beerr <br />over-populated by farm families who tried to cultivated a hun- <br />dred thousand acres of farmland, when there was only water <br />enough for some thirty thousand acres. In his ramblings, one <br />of the valley residents noted that the GWlilisOd River ran at an <br />elevation sufficiently higher tha~ the uncomphagre to permit <br />gravi ty irrigation through a tunnel. The only ;,ro c.lems were <br />the gra~lite 'flaIls that e.:ltrenched the Gunnison River and some <br />seven miles of the Rocky Mountains (at the Continental Divide) <br />through which the tunnel Nas to be bored. <br />As in the Case of the Imperial Valley, this u~dertaki~g <br />WqS destined for disaster. Construction difficulties of the <br />tunnel were monumental as were the costs. The initial project, <br />f~ded by tne state of Colorado, gave out beforea thousand feet <br />of tunnel had bee~ carved. Interest was revived, however, with <br />the passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902.and construction <br />of the tunnel was renewed. <br />Unfortunately the Bureau of Reclamation's efforts did ~ot <br />fare much better than the state's. Although the t~lnel was <br />finally com;leted, the entire project was underestimated from <br />-10- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.