My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05149
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05149
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:10 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:53:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8180.800
Description
Purgatoire River Project
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
9/1/1949
Author
RJ Tipton
Title
Engineering Report on Flood Control and Irrigation District with Particular Reference to the Piedmont Bridge Dam and Reservoir Site
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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 />a <br />OJ <br />ao <br />+-- <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />In the above summary items 1 to II, inclusive, were pre- <br />pared by representatives of the City of Trinidad and Las <br />Animas County from questionnaires which were submitted to <br />property owners. Item 12 was prepared from information <br />gathered from railroad and utilities, covering, in general, <br />flood losses sustained in the last 50 years. The values for <br />early years were adjusted to present values. Item 3 of the <br />table is .obviously in error so far as the amount is concerned. <br /> <br />From knowledge of the area and in view of details of the report <br />of the Corps of EngL~eers, it does not seem possible that 851 <br />acres lying in the flood plain would be damaged by $100.00 per <br />acre every year. Item 3 was therefore omitted from the total <br />but there was added to the total $3,000 to account for crop <br />losses, this estimate being based on the Corps of Engineers <br />es timate adj us ted to pres en t values. Item No.4, "Crop Los s <br />Due to Lack of Water," would not be chargeable to flood damage <br />but would be a loss that would be alleviated by the irrigation <br />features of the project. The reported amount of the loss is <br /> <br />much too high as indicated by the foregoing detailed discussion <br /> <br /> <br />of irrigation benefits. It should be borne in mind that there <br /> <br /> <br />is a direct relation between the amount that local interests <br /> <br />would be expected to pay toward the irrigation features of the <br /> <br /> <br />project and the gross loss claimed due to lack of water. <br /> <br /> <br />The percentage the local interests can afford to pay of <br /> <br />the increased gross crop production usually varies between 5 <br /> <br />and 10 per cent. If the increase in gross crop production <br /> <br /> <br />brought about by the project were the amount stated in Item 4, <br /> <br />(2 ) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.