WSP04544 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. c .;--" :,...=::::. '.- ~"-- .:..:..----.-. - -- - ::-I_~_~.", . .-.__ .L...........--~-~~..- r~~"7_.~ -...~ ~ -~_--;...;;:.:";.--c- ~ - ..:;.~--;o ~l ....'!.:... .. ~ -~ ....~n. -0_- I} Carter, perhaps un....it. tingly, had upset a political deal arranged in 1968 by for- mer Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall. D-Colo.. chairman of the Inle- __ rior and Insular Affairs Com- ~ mince. Aspinall won the addi. tion of five Colorado Upper Basin projects as his price for agreeing to authorize the Cen- Iral Arizona Project. a vast SI.3 billion aqueduct system that is scheduled (Q supply . Colorado River water 10 Phoe- nix and Tucson by 1985. $0 far, construction has be. gun on only IwO of the projects, McPhee Dam and the Dallas Creek Dam. Be- cause of cost overruns al Dal- __ "__ las Creek, Rep. Ray Kogoy- sck, D-Colo.. has introduced a bill (UR 4483), now awaiting House floor action, thai would guarantee S40 million in fed- eral funds and waive the usual requiremenlthat local govern- ments pick up 10 per cent of the tab. No such proposal can be made for the McPhee Dam, and if Cortez and the other towns on the Do]ores arc not willing to double their contributions, Kogovsek said his only choice would be to try to tap the Upper Basin "power fund" that will pay for the irrigation part of the Dolores project. This would require an amendment to the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act to allow the power revenues from Lower Basin dams to pay for municipal and industrial use COSts as wC:[1 as the agriculture use costs of Upper Basin dam projects. "I am still studying it," Kogovsek said, "although I just don't see any other op- tion." Utility customers who buy power from the Lower Basin dams would probably oppose such a move because their elec- tricity rates would go up. These custom- ers, mostly power distribution companies, are located all over the West, from Los Angeles to the Rocky Mountains. c -- - - -", ,- -- - - :e--__~.- - -.~- ~- -~-'-- ~ Jl --~-..;:;:.--?; _.,.;:c. ........... -....~ - -.....~""'--~.. -:.....,.. ......:--:::....-..:; - ~~.:;..- -"'~:>>:~~.;.l. -. --.......-- In many resjNcrs. completing construction of a damfor the Dolores River in Colorado symbolius the conrrOYersy over how the nation USt'S its limited water resources at a lime whtn enormous water projects appear to be things of the pasl. issue. He says supporters of the dam are focusing on municipal and recreational uses instead of fanning. "Over the years, we have seen an in- crease in the construction costs going into the recreational and fish and wildlife val- ues," Hill said. "But what you see for irrigation will benefit everyone here, not just the landowners." The conflict between letting the river conlinue to flow free and damming it gnaws at such local leaders as David D. Herrick, a Cortez veterinarian and memo ber of the Dolores Water Conservancy Board. Herrick and his wife, Pat, a native of Telluride, near the Dolores's headwa- ters, have run the Dolores in rafts seven times and deeply appreciate the river's wild and scenic values. The Herricks recognize that white-wa- ter enthusiasts may have to wait three or four years after the dam is completed before there .....iII be enough waler again 10 allow rafting and kayaking. It will take that long, acrording to Hill, to fill the reservoir, Even then, the dam will probably re- lease only enough water for two weeks of white-water boating a year. The rafting section courses through spectacular red sandstone canyons lhat sometimes rise 1,000 feet above the river, which has carved giant arcs (hrough more than 190 million years of geologic time. Yet Herrick wants the dam. "You've gOl a resource Ihal is Rowing by now," he said. "You ha\'e 10 ask, are people going to keep moving here or not? And if you decide not to develop this water, will that stop people from coming'?" Before the dam's construction began four years ago, the people of Cortez and the other communities along the Dolores enthusiastically supported the project, Voters overwhelmingly approved the S85.8 million project in 1977 by more than 9 to J. Since then, however, inflation and de. sign changes to enhance the dam's safety have pushed the project's estimated total cost to S381.9 million. Before it is fin- ished, its cost could exceed SSOO million, Although the federal government is financing 90 per cent of these costs, the taxpayers of Cortez and the other benefit- ing communities will have to increase their contribution beyond the S20 million mu:imum in the federal reimbursement contract. Another two<ounty election will be required to approve a new contract be- tween the Bureau of Reclamation and the Dolores Water Conservancy District. But people in the area are now thinking twice about whether the McPhee Dam will be worth the higher taxes and tripled water bills. President Carter first focused national attention on the Dolores project in 1977 when he added it to his "hit list" of authorized dams he did not think should be built. Outraged, Lamm and Colora. do's congressional delegation mounted a counteratt.aek that succeeded in restoring the dam's appropriation the fallowing year. SALT A;\'D DROUGHTS The Dolores project's financial prob- lems do not threaten continued conslrue. tion until next year, but the possibility is already encouraging the dam's environ- mental critics to renew their opposition in Congress. At the Environmental Policy Center in Washington, water specialist Brent Blackwelder cites the Colorado's serious S3.linity problem as reason enough why the dam should not be completed. "If everyone in the Colorado River basin tried to develop evef).thing," Black- welder said in an interview, .'there would c 1258 NATlO:-.:....UOURNAL 7/11/82