My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02600
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02600
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:37:42 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:13:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8141.100
Description
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - Project Description
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1975
Author
Terence Brace
Title
The History of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Project Overview
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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 /> <br />0691 <br /> <br />: <br /> <br />These were: <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />(1) Municipal Water - some support was g8ined for the <br />Project in this field because it was easy to see the <br />need of water for people and cities. <br />(2) Hydroelectric Power - this wasn't a real purpose of <br />the project although at this time there was a shor~Rge <br />of hydroelectric power. <br />(3) aecreational - this phase of the project was put in at <br />the request of various Congressmen, and real support <br />84 <br />now began to develop for the project. ' <br />The chances for passage by Congress were now greatly <br />increased because not only had a taxing district been formed to <br />repay the government for money it put into the project, but the <br />project was now multi-purpose and served not only agricultural <br />needs but also municipal, hydroelectric, and recreational as <br />85 <br />well. <br /> <br />A bill for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was again in- <br />troduced in 1958 and things looked promising until in one of <br />the last hearings in the House. A controversy developed over <br />the water rights of the Western Slope and resulted in the project <br />86 ' <br />not getting any action by the House in that year. Even though <br />great progress was made toward congressional approval a very big <br />problem still remained, one which had been with the project from <br /> <br />tl4 <br />Thomson, p. 155. <br />85 <br />Ibid., p. 156. <br />86 <br />Christy, p. 52. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.