Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />a~pect which the government encourages. <br /> <br />.'Jr. Ten Evck: Hr. Chairman, I hate to appear to be critical of this <br />paragraph, with Larry's comments, but we haven't really addressed <br />the question. We have said here that power generation should be <br />encouraged. We haven't answered the question. Should or should not <br />the use of power revenues to support irrigation be considered? I <br />think we kind of talked around it and \'le really haven't addressed it. <br /> <br />~Jr. Sparks: What I intended to say in this draft is that there is <br />nothing \1rong about this type of assistance because it doesn't cost <br />the federal government any money. Reclamation should be entitled to <br />continue assistance from power revenues because it is part and parcel <br />of it. Electricity is a by-product of water storage. My argument is <br />that it is an integral part of many irrigation projects and is not a <br />true subsidy. <br /> <br />I-Jr. Stapleton: All right, Larry, if you will continue with your draft <br />along that line and let's move on to flood control. <br /> <br />~Jr. Sparks: In the field of flood control, the report recommends that <br />maximum consideration be given to flood plain zoning. To this end, <br />it is recommended that the federal government give assistance to the <br />states in encouraging the establishment of parl~s and other open spaces <br />in those areas which are subject to flooding. I believe that this is <br />a premise on which we can all agree. However, this somewhat begs the <br />quest~on of what to do about those areas which are already highly <br />deve~oped and are subject to flooding. Concerning this subject, the <br />report states that further federal grants and loans for the repair of <br />flood damages should not be made unless adequate provisions have been <br />made by state and local entities to prevent the repetition of such <br />damages. Now, let's apply that to the 1965 flood. If this federal <br />policy had been in effect in 1965, the federal government could have <br />said, "We are not going to give you any money to repair damages or <br />loan you money unless you create a situation where that type of flood <br />will not occur any more." The only way we could do that is to evacu- <br />ate all of that area along the South Platte River in DEnver, Littleton, <br />Englewood, and other areas. l1e are talking about several billion <br />dollars of costs if we have to evacuate the flood plain of the South <br />Platte River. It is unfortunate that people built there, but they did. <br />l1e can't turn back the course of history. So the only answer is to <br />build a dam somewhere as it is being built today, the Chatfield Project. <br /> <br />In effect what the National Water Commission is saying is impossible to <br /> <br />-12- <br />