Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />\'. <br /> <br />r f"l ' .") <br />'0 .L JFRYlNGPAN-ARKANSAB PROJECT, COLORADO <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br />were not sure I was going to make it. Nor was I. But I am glad to <br />be here and I sometimes wonder why. <br />Also, by way of introduction, Mr.. D?miny aRd ,Mr. Bl}rnett a~e <br />appearing before the House ApproprmtlOns CommIttee tllls week III <br />search of a transfusion to permit perpetuation of reclamation. They <br />reO'ret their inability to be here and send by me theIr support of the <br />legislation that is before the committee and expre.ss again their con- <br />fidence iR it and their regard for the committee and its works. <br />Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we are pleased <br />to aI4'ear once again to discuss the Frying-pan-Arkansas project. As <br />the :O;ecretary has said, representatives of the Department have ap- <br />penred before the committee on behnlf of this project on many previ- <br />ous occasions, the last of which waS during the second session of the <br />86th Congress. <br />At that time, infOl'mat.ion was presented concerning chaRges in the <br />physical plan that have been found desirable since the original plan- <br />ning report was submitted and printed as House Document No. 187, <br />83d Congress. <br />A reevaluation statement dated .January 1960 was presented, and, <br />insofar as the physical aspects and engineering costs of the plan are <br />concerned, it remains u valid current statement.. In the rnermtlme, <br />we have had occasion to reexamine the financial feasibility of this <br />project as noted in the May 4, 1961, departmental report on the bills. <br />Later in my statement, I will discuss the findings of this study. <br />During the hearin!(S before the 86th Congress, testimony was offered <br />concerning the substitution of Ruedi Dam ,md Reservoir in the plan <br />of development in lieu of Aspen Dam and Reservoir as provided in <br />HOllse Document 187. Either of these facilities would furnish regu- <br />lation of replarement water for Colora(lo River Rasin uses and pre- <br />vent. these uses from being adversely atrected by Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />diversions. <br />Ruedi Reservoir serves the added purpose of furnishina- regulation <br />for future uses in the Colorado River Basin, lLnd is thus believed to <br />be more acceptable to all concerned with water resource m~tters in the <br />State of Colorado. <br />The est.imated cost of the project. is $1G9,905,OOO. This is the same <br />estimate that "'" pr~sented to the committee in 19GO. It includes the <br />eost of Ruedi Dam and Reservoir, ,,'hich is estimated at. $12,831,000, <br />as compared to Aspen Dam and Resenoir, which would hare been in <br />the order of $7,600,000. 'Ye are happy to ohserve at this point thut <br />Bureau of Reclnmation experience during the past 12 months does <br />not indicate any requirement to revise these costs upward due to in- <br />flationary trends. <br />The water supply aspects of the project are likewise unchan~d <br />from our previous testimony. The project would result in the impofta- <br />&jpn on the ave~age of a?out 69,000 ~cre~f~et of water annually from <br />Vie Colorado RIver Baslll and the regulatIon use and reuse of native <br />:l\.'lrkansas River winter flows and flood flows totaling more.than 140,000 <br />acre-feet per aRnUm. These water supplies would provide needed <br />sUPl.'lemental municipal and industri.1 water to the cities of Colorado <br />Sprmgs and PU'i:.blo as well as to other communities in the Arkansas <br />River Basin, T <br />