Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~. ~ r 7:' <br />io'..J-..J <br /> <br />FRYINGPAK-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />Arkansas Valley by the Fryinrrpan-Arkansas project would not in-' <br />-crease harvest of surplus Cl'opS,but would, on the. contrary, shift. part <br />of the economy to crops which are less risky in lliltUl'e and hu,-e iL <br />better cash value on a longrun basis. I regret to say that I do not <br />have the exact. figures on this shift, but I am sure they would be avail- <br />able t.hrough rhe'Department, of Agricult.ure. <br />The present proposal fur the Fryingpan-Al'kansas involyes t.he same <br />cost figures as previously proposed to this committee; namely, $169,- <br />905,000, but would involve the cost of the Ruedi Reservoir on the <br />western ~lope in phC'e of the Aspen Reservoir. Since the Ruecli Ueser. <br />voir will han an est.imated cost. of $12,831,000 as opposed to $7,800,000 <br />for the Aspen Reservoir, it is apparent t,hat the estimated cost of the <br />construction of the entire project is somewhat lower than originally <br />contemplated by t.he Bureau. <br />Yon will note that all four Congressmen from Colorado h,lve joined <br />in sponsoring identical bills for t.his project which, I believe is a good <br />indicat.ion that the vast Illftjority of the people in Colorado are in <br />support, of this project. I have heard l'nJllors that. there is a small <br />group in Pitkin County which is still opposed to it and I suspect that <br />their ohjec.t.ifJIlS will be brought out in the course of the he,uings. The <br />fact. remains, howevcr, that the massin.', objections formerly eXIH'essed <br />by subst.ant.ial sect.ions of the western slope haye now been C lUnged <br />to endorsement. of t.he project by yirtue of the inclusion of the Ruedi <br />Resen'oir as :1 rereg111ating reseryoir for downstream users. <br />The Ruedi Resen-oir will pt'O\'ide a storage capacity of 100,000 <br />ac.re-feet and the elltire project will provide surplus water in the <br />amount of 8D,100 acre-feet for the Arkansas Valley. Twent.y thousollld <br />ar.I'P'-fpet. will be ll.~d as additional municipll.lit.y water supplies for <br />Pueblo, Colorado Sprinp:s, La. Junt.!l, Lamar, nnd other municipal- <br />ities nnd the balance will be lIsed as snppleIlIenhll irrigation water <br />for lnnds which already fall in the category of i rl'igated properties, <br />althongh the water short.age in t.hese nl'e<lS has been yery evident in <br />past. yenrs. <br />It, should be emphasized that no new hllld will be brought under <br />cnlti ,'ntion by virtue. of this project, that t.he rights of downstream <br />users of wa.ter on the western slope will be preserved by t.he Ruedi <br />Reserl'o;,' alld t.hllt t.lie project has l,een endorsed by t.hp. Upper Colo- <br />rado River Commission pursuant to nn nc1jonrnecl regular meeting <br />held ill Dem'er on ~f:Ly 11. 1081. In addition, the projpct has the <br />unanimous approynl of the Colorado 'Yater COllse.r\"lltion Board, has <br />had t.he support, and approml in t.he past of t.hree administrations- <br />two Democratil; and one Republican-and hns been recommended in <br />its prese.nt form by the Department of the Interiol'. <br />;.Mr. Chairman, I appreciate. t.he opportunity given to Ille to t.est.ify <br />iil':support of the proposal fn .J strongly urge that. t.he committee <br />again. approve t.he projeet. al :. port t.he bill favorably to the full <br />Conllnlttee. <br />1\11". ROOERS. The Chair no~ h~cognizes the gentleman from Florida, <br />Mr. Haley. '. <br />:Mr. H~'L,. E,X-:- f. r. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman of <br />the full cr. ,tee, for the statement that he has i1 made in regard <br />tothis p ,ar matter.: <br />, ~ . . <br /> <br />I <br />