Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,<,0' ,~ <br />340 0 .L -~ 'FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO <br /> <br />Hydropower O"eneration, totaling GOO milli~:m. kiJ~)\\'att-hours, re- <br />mains unchanged'. Long-terlll average yearly IrrIgatIOn shortages of <br />32 percent will be reduced to lG percent by timely releases of stored <br />wat.er during critical crop-growing periodsl amounting to fln average <br />of 0.6 of an acre-foot for each of the 280,600 inadequately irrigated <br />acres in the Southeastern Colorado Consenancy District. <br />Althou"h not great in amount., the supplemental water supply rep- <br />resents b~o irrigations of about 3 inches each and will ellt1ule farmers <br />to be assured that speeialty crops for which this ,'alley is alh'pled ."\11 <br />be started and finished. Historically fanners in the Arknusas HiveI' <br />Valley have utilized as much land for the prodnction of melous, fruits, <br />sugarbeds, ,'egetablcs, and other specialt.y crops as thc water supply <br />prospects would justifv. <br />Shortages in the water supply outlook frequently required that <br />the expense and risk of high-value crops be avoided and t.hat thc lund <br />resource be used for genera.l farm crops from which some return might <br />be expected with little or no irrigation water. Often these substitute <br />crops ,,"ere in categ'Ories that :1.1'(~ now in surplus. rt. can, thus, be <br />se'm that this project would have n betH,ficial etfect on the commodity <br />surplus problem by actllal1y bringing about a uesiraLle change in <br />the land use. <br />Broad generalizations that improved proo.uetion through den..lop- <br />ment of reclamation irri~ation facilities add to the exist.ing crop sur- <br />pluses are misleading. Each project proposal should be cousidered <br />on its own merits-the crops it now produces~ the crops it will produee <br />in the future, whether the addit.ional water will st.abilize the agricul- <br />turnl and business community, and t.he immediate effect of construc- <br />tion activities in an area of high unemployment. <br />The ilTi,!!;ator enjoys freedom and /lexibility wit.hin his ski]]s and <br />the climatic limitation of the area to "plant for the market." If <br />his chances for greate::;t earningH dictate specialty crops, he wiII not <br />continue to grow s\1rplus cereal crops for cash. If an ent.erprise based <br />on farm fep,riillg of livestock otfers the ehllllce of greater economic re- <br />ward, no farmer in this area. will continue. to be satisfied wit.h the <br />enterprise or cOlnbinatiol1 of enterprises now followed. The high <br />ntlue truck nnd veget.able crops and t.he farm feedlot operat.ions will <br />in ulllikelihood ofl'~r the grentf!st ecol1omie retltl'n. <br />These truths are adequately demonstrater! in other similar areas <br />where reclamation has stabilized llnd augmented tbe "'nt,,. supply, <br />One such notable example is the Colora(lo-Big Thompson project <br />of Calm'ado, nn area of simiblr characteristics. <br />The Fryingpall-Arkunsas area. is one of the depressed economic <br />areas suffering from seriolls uneml;loyment and ~l(:companyinrr busi- <br />l~ess recession. Const.ruction nct.i\'lties will improve, t.his Iocur situu- <br />hon as a .short-t.erm benefit. A nmnb~r of years will ue required in <br />~ons/.ru.etl.on and additional years hefore. the project fnrm production <br />IS maxllmzcn under matnre development. <br />Tn the mennt,imc, incre:lsin,!! population and increa~.ill!!' COI1~umf)- <br />t.ion t.rends indicate a future inurket for t.he t.ypes of pl'oduets to be <br />prod~lce.d. T!lUS we need have no fear that. conslruct.ion of the proj- <br />ect. wllllntenslfy t.he exist.ing surplus situation. <br />From t.he ShlIldpoillt of economic justification, the Fryingpun. <br />Ar)i"!lns:ls project. is meritorious. Our revised analyses bave not <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-I <br />