Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />'. ,';:: ".:- <br /> <br />4 <br />j <br /> <br /> <br />- -.". ~ <br /> <br />C),:,--CJ'i-C(O <br />ANIMAS CHRONOLOGY <br /> <br />9A <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- <br />-- <br /> <br />~-, ~'~ ,. . <br /> <br />'. .1904 - The first official study by the U.S. Reclamation Service on a plan to <br />store water from the Animas River and use it for agriculture. <br />.1915,1917 and 1924 - Periodic updates are done on the initial plans, one of <br />, , which called for a rasarvoir 3 miles north of Durango and diverting water through a <br />38-mile canal to a reservoir on La Plata River near the New Mexico border. <br />.1938 - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation opens an office in Durango to study the <br />project. It remains today. <br />.1956 - Congress, through the Colorado River Storage Act, authorizes a feasi- <br />bility study of the Animas-La Plata project. <br />': . 1962 - The bureau finds the project to be "engineeringly sound and financially <br />sound and feasible." The next year, it recommends to Congress that the project <br />be authorized with a $102 million price tag. <br />.1988 - Congress authorizes the project, consisting of Howardsville reservoir <br />near Silverton, Hay Gulch reservoir 25 miles west of Durango, Animas Mountain <br />reservoir to service Durango, Meadows reservoir, 48 miles of canals and tunnels. <br />and a diversion of the Animas River at Taft, halfway between Silverton and Duran- <br />; go. This grandiose engineering scheme, a supporter said years later, "would have <br />, f" f>een an environmental dIsaster." <br />; .1973 - Congress appropriates funds for advance studies. <br />: ,.1974--77 - Advisory team of state, federal and local officials considers about 30 <br />anemate plans for the project. <br />., -' . January 1979 - A group to be known as Taxpayers for the Animas-la Plata <br />'1 Referendum, or TAR, organizes to fight formetion of a taxing district without an <br />, election and to kill the project itself. <br />, ' . September 1979 - The definitive plan report, detailing the project's new con- <br />'I figuration of Ridges Basin and Southern Ute reservoirs, IS released by the Interior <br />Department. <br />--~) . July 1980 - The final environmental impact statement addresses the project. <br />';' ';1- June 1981 - District judge orders the formation of the Animas-La Plata Water <br />" !'.' Conservancy District, deciding along legal battle by project opponent TAR over <br />,;,'. whether to have the question of a district placed before the voters. The decision is <br />- I appealad and the ludge is upheld. <br />j . March 1982 - the water district approves a repayment contract for the project, <br />1 but the wheels are turning In Washington for cost~sharlng, which eventualty VOIds <br />'. this contract. <br />~ . August 1985 - Formal talks begin on cost sharing, as federal, state, local and <br />( tribal officials negotiate who will put up the money to build the project. <br />~ . July 1888 - The Interior Department accepts a cost-sharing arrangement that. <br />.j- calls for state and local entitles to provide some 38 percent of the upfront funding. <br />~ Just as importantly, rt splits the project in two, putting some major components on <br />- hold. <br />. December 1988 - The Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement agree.. <br />ment is signed in Denver. Utes agree to drop claims on San Juan Basin streams in <br />exchange for water in the Anlmas~La Plata project and about $60 million in scrcall- <br />ed economic development funds. <br />. Dec. 8, 1987 - Voters in Durango overwhelmingly approve the repayment con- <br />" tract and locals prepare for the long~awalted project start. <br />. February 1980 - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces it is studying <br />: _the project to determine its Impact on endangered fish. Meanwhile, voters in San <br />: Juan County, N.M., approve their repayment contract. <br />, . Mey 6, 1990 - The Fish and Wildlife Service calls for a seven-year study of the <br />,~ project to measure its impact on the endangered squawfish, razorback sucker and <br />~ humpback chub. Rep. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, D-Cnlo" says the decision eflec- <br />: tively kills the project. <br /> <br />'1 <br /> <br /> <br />,-,,- <br /> <br /> <br />" <br /> <br /> <br />30F3 <br />