|
<br />2818
<br />
<br />36 FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO
<br />
<br />Mr. HALEY. I have not. seen that.. I did .not ask vou about. that. I
<br />asked you what they were and how much they were.
<br />Mr. PALMER. Of t.he Ruedi Dnm the westei'n slope portion is $117,-
<br />500 for flood control. There is $1,757,800 for fish and wildlife, and
<br />there is $55,000 for recrention. Of t.he Fryingpan-Arkansas project
<br />port.iou there is $2,081,000, nonreimbursable, and the flood control
<br />allocation of $14,897,000. So to slllmnarize, there is $16,978,000 non-
<br />reimbursable on the enstern slope nnd there is $1,930,000 on the Ruedi
<br />Dnm and Resen.oir, we~terll slope.
<br />Mr. H.,u;y. Now you state, ]\fl'. Palmer, thnt. the estimated cost of
<br />the project is still $1611,900,000. That is the same figure you pre-
<br />sented to this committee in ]f)GO, is that right?
<br />!lfr. PAL'lER. As I recall, that is the exact fignre, yes. I might add,
<br />Mr. Haley, that, of course, construction eost indexe:-5 hu\'e varied up
<br />and dO,,"Il, but. the composite figure is down slig-htly frolll what. it was
<br />n. year ago. 'Ve do not think that reduction is down enough to justify
<br />changing the basic fi~ul'e.
<br />}'fr. I-I.\LEY. In ether words, it. is going t.o east yon les~ no\\" to con-
<br />struct it really than JOU estimated in lD60 j js that l'ighU
<br />:Mr. PALMF.R. 1Ve are not willing to say it. is going to cost liS less.
<br />'Vhat we are willing to say, we uo not., Lhink it will cost us any more
<br />than what wesaid inln60.
<br />Mr. H,\LEY. This dam and resen-oir is goinp: to cost YOU $12,801,000,
<br />Is that replacinp: this Aspen Dam and Reservoir! .
<br />Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir, Mr. Haley; it replaces Aspen Dam and Res-
<br />ervoir and fldditionally proyides storage for potential western slope
<br />use. It fulfills the requirements for western slope replacement stor-
<br />age and also provides for a possible future USf:'..
<br />Mr. HAL"Y. There is an approximate ditference of $5 million in
<br />cost., is there not 1
<br />~Jr. P.\LJu:n. That is right..
<br />:Mr. HALEY. Either your figures were wrong last time or there is
<br />something wrong now.
<br />You say one of the reasons for building is t.hat the Fl'yingpan-
<br />Arkansas project area is one of the depre~sed areas. Yon do not
<br />expect the const~'uction of t.his to do mueh about t.hat, do yon; only on
<br />a temporary baSTS? .
<br />Mr. PALMER. Mr. Haley, that is a dillicult question to answer. Let
<br />me give you my own views on t.his. I think you ,"dll ha.ve an immediate
<br />effect not. only on the site from the standpoint of construction employ-
<br />ment.. from the number of const.ruction worke-rs a.nd so all that. will be
<br />put t'o work, but YOll will hnn~- n. corollary effect. t.hat will go t.o all
<br />segments of iTull1st.I'Y ill minor degree, of conrse, with thf'; l~ln-eement
<br />of or(lers for generaJtol's and cOILductors and pipe und thmgs tha.t
<br />are not mnnufactured on site.
<br />The ultimate effect of the thing is realized when you round out. the
<br />\Vater supply and firm up that. backbone of the ecoilOmy of the area,
<br />t.he agricult.ural backbone of the area. I t.hink it will ha\'e a profound
<br />effect from now on after the water is available because these people
<br />will have fl better outlook for continued operation, they will have
<br />bet.ter earning pOll'er, they will have better purchasing power, and
<br />this, in turn. is translated again into all segments of the economy
<br />both local, regional, and national.
<br />
|