My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04363
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04363
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:55:06 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:17:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.110.60
Description
Colorado River Water Users Association
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
12/6/1951
Author
CRWUA
Title
Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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 /> <br />Four major exportation projects utilizing Colorado River water are <br />under investigation: Fryingpan-Arkansas, which would supplement Arkansas <br />River flows with water from headwaters of the Gunnison for irrigation, power <br />and municipal water supplies; Blue-South Platte, which would divert water from <br />the Blue River to the South Platte for irrigation; Central Utah, which would <br />provide irrigation water for lands South of Salt Lake City and Provo; and San <br />Juan-Chama, which would divert water from the San Juan into the Rio Chama for <br />relief of water shortages in the Rio Grande Valley. This project would be <br />competitive for water with the Shiprock (Navajo Indian) Irrigation Project and <br />the South San Juan Project. Investigations and negotiations are being continued <br />to determine the most efficient combination of acreages among these three <br />projects. <br /> <br />The stormy history of the Central Arizona Project is familiar. Senate <br />bill 75 of this Congress, which would authorize construction of this project, <br />passed the Senate and hearings have been held by the House Committee on <br />Interior and Insular Affairs. Another problem under investigation is a means <br />of providing permanent diversion facilities for the Palo Verde Irrigation <br />District. The power potential of the lower basin system would be augmented <br />by construction of two dams under investigation, Bridge Canyon, proposed as <br />a major feature of the Central Arizona Project, and Marble Canyon, not yet <br />reported upon. <br /> <br />A report on the Collbran Project, Colorado, was sent to Congress in <br />July 1951. Bills to authorize constructic>n were presented in both Houses. <br />A report on the initial development of the Gunnison.Arkansas Project under. <br />went review by States and Federal agencies, and has been forwarded to the <br />President. <br /> <br />A preliminary report on the Dixie Project, Utah, has been received <br />in Washington and a bill to authorize construction has been introduced. The <br />Bureau has completed a preliminary report on a second barrel for the San Diego <br />Aqueduct. Legislation to authorize construction has been enacted into law. <br />Construction has been assigned to the Navy, and the Bureau will cooperate to <br />expedite completion. <br /> <br />Two unfavorable reports were submitted to Washington in prelimirlary <br />drafts: Joseph City (Holbrook) Project, Arizona, and the Moapa Valley Project, <br />.Nevada. Bills were introduced in this session of Congress to authorize five <br />projects in Nevada that would utilize Colorado River water. Although these <br />were not Bureau proposals, we had previously examined the areas and have dis- <br />carded some as infeasible of development and included some in tentative <br />schedules for detailed studies. The Moapa Valley Project, subject of an <br />unfavorable report, and the Ft. Mohave Project, now under investigation, <br />include some of that area. <br /> <br />During the last fiscal year (1951) the Bureau's construction program <br />in the Colorado River Basin was approximately $30 million, and this fiscal <br />year (1952) we anticipate construction expenditures of approximately $26 <br />million. Our estimate for 1953 is about $14 million. In the face of con- <br />tinuing rising costs, this expenditure next year would result in less than <br />one-half of 1952's construction volume. The explanation for this reduced <br />constructiob program is that all our large projects in the Basin are <br />approaching completion. The present policy of "no new starts" is also <br />partially to blame. <br /> <br />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.