|
<br />I
<br />
<br />THE DAILY
<br />ENTINEL
<br />
<br />
<br />32 pages Newsstand price 15c
<br />
<br />Grand Junction, Colo.
<br />
<br />Wednesday, December 22, 1976
<br />
<br />Big vote edge carries
<br />Dallas Creek Proiect
<br />
<br />By PAUL HATHAWAY belt along the Uncompahgre
<br />Senllnel .1aIf writer River from above Ridgway to
<br />MONTROSE _ The vital im- Della, were eligible to vote In the
<br />~ portance of water to the West- election. That Included many
<br />: ern Slope was dramatically people not on the TrI-County wa-
<br />ter sy.tem, who may not have
<br />! underscored Tuesday by a voted because they receive water
<br />: landslide vote in favor of the from municipalities or private wa-
<br />'$54 million Dallas Creek ter companies. The district has
<br />Project. . taxing authority, and includes the
<br />The final tally on the 60- towns.
<br />'year repayment contract. for Up to C._.
<br />$28 '11' f f'd The affirmative vote by elector.
<br />: . mI Ion 0 tbe cost 0 R. - in the district Tuesday WaS the
<br />i gway Reservoir was 5,197 to last hurdle, short of conlres-
<br />:613, a margin of nearly 9 to 1. sional financing, for.construction
<br />Only one area - Ridgway - of the project, wbich has been in
<br />,voted against the project, 80 to the mill for more than 20 years. In
<br />148. Colona carried it, 55 to 25. anticipation of an aHirmallve
<br />In Montrose, which had the vote, construction engineering
<br />and land acquisition bave ai-
<br />heaviest voter turnout, tbe Is- ready begun. Nearly $1 million
<br />isue carriedd 3,660 to 390. has been spent studying the proj-
<br />; Delta and Olathe area voters ecHor feasibility.
<br />; ;favored It by the wid'est ration Congress has approved the proj-
<br />. ,margin, turning in votes of 923 ect, and hliB authorized nearly $II
<br />.to 34 at Olathe and 1,401 to 43 million to start construction In
<br />'at Delta. In all, 5,810 ballots January. The projectis being ban-
<br />. :were cast. died by the U.S. Bureau of Reel-
<br />. SpotesmaD juhllant amation, with operation to be
<br />.' "For a special election, the taken over by Tri-County after the
<br />: !turnout was just fantastic," said a dam is completed.
<br />. spokesman for the Tri-County Wa- Cost of the project Is estimated
<br />, ter Conservancy District, sponsor at $54 million. About $28 million
<br />"flhe project. "We see It as a IlIAd. ,of it must be repaid over the next
<br />~lIde vote of confidence. It'. just eo years at low interest rates by
<br />what we want - what the people TrI-County and those to whom It
<br />want. Water is vital to all of U8." sells water. Most of the additional
<br />Persons living within the Tri- costlsfederalgrantsfromtheCol-
<br />County district, basically a broad orado River Storage Project kitty.
<br />
<br />.1\
<br />. if
<br />I
<br />,
<br />
<br />.y"/
<br />
<br />The title, "Dallas Creek Proj-
<br />ect" is actually a misnomer, nowa..
<br />days, since Dallas Creek II no
<br />longer a part of the project. It was
<br />originally proposed as a series of
<br />three reservoirs, on Dallas and
<br />Cow creeks and the Unearn.
<br />pahgre River, with a series' of
<br />canals 'and pumping stations.
<br />The project proved financially
<br />unfeasible, however, and was
<br />pared down to only the 125,000
<br />acre-foot Ridgway resevoir on the
<br />Uncompahgre. That was later
<br />pared again to 80,000 acre-feet
<br />and cut the cost from $70 million
<br />to $54 million.
<br />The water is to serve the Tri.
<br />County system, for Irrigation and
<br />to supplement water supplies for
<br />Montrose, Olathe and Delta. The'
<br />project also calls for extensive
<br />recreation development on and
<br />near the reservoir, for wildlife
<br />refuge areas, and some flsbing
<br />easements on the Uncompahgre
<br />below the dam.
<br />Objection. by Ouray
<br />Ridgway and Ouray County gen-
<br />erally have been alternating be-
<br />tween lukewarm in favor of the
<br />project and coldly alalnst It. At
<br />one time, it was proposed to flood
<br />the town of Ridgway.
<br />Ouray County objected, due to
<br />lost tax base and fears that it
<br />would hamper agriculture and
<br />ranChing in the area. The Rid-
<br />gway town fathers .adamantly op-
<br />posed It because they feared a
<br />five-year boom-bust.
<br />Officials noted that the small
<br />community already is in financial
<br />binds due to water and sewer
<br />needs and a new school. They fear
<br />an Influx of construction workers
<br />could force ever higher taxes and
<br />new service facilities that would-.
<br />not be needed - and whicb the
<br />town could not pay for - alter
<br />construction Is finished and work-
<br />ers move out.
<br />Proponents claim the tax loss
<br />should be offset by new taxes on
<br />construction eqUipment wblle the
<br />dam Is being built, and predict
<br />that year.round recreallon and
<br />more Irrigation water will more
<br />thim make up for long-term taxes
<br />10S9<s.
<br />
|