WSP06679 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ul11.) COLORADO RIVER ASSOCIATION 417 South Hill Street, Room 929 Los Angeles, California 90013 Phone: 626-4621 July 30, 1965 HOLD FOR RELEASE MONDAY, AUGUST 2 (3 P.M. EDT) With Map "Tracts of land nearby a large, inter-basin aqueduct can get water from it more cheaply than can be done independently, and residents of communities along the route of such an aqueduct will have many opportunities to share the economic benefits of the project." Congo John V. Tunney of Riverside, Calif., made this statement today (8/2 In Washington on the floor of the House of Representatives. The statement was accompanied by a map which indicates many of the towns and cities near the five most frequently discussed paths by which a transfer might be made of surplus water from the northwest to the over-committed Colorado River. It was observed by Congo Tunney that only a small fraction of arable land in the Columbia River basin, for example, can produce consistently without irrigation. Yet a number of projects to get water on such lands have been foun to cost too much independently. Many developments of this sort would become feasible, however, as parts of a major water work. With water available, much farm and industrial development would be possible in such localities. With jobs available because enough water would be at hand, population growth and economic prosperity then could be sustained there, it was argued. Names of some of the communities which might enjoy an opportunity to profit from new business activity and from development made possible by construction of a nearby interbasin aqueduct, depending upon Which alternative is favored by Congress, are: Idaho: Arco, Challis, Florence, Gibbonsville, Glen Ferry, Idaho Falls, Jerome, Kamiah, Mackay, Salmon and Twin Falls. Montana: Anaconda, Eureka, Hamilton, Kalispell and Missoula. (more)