1st Session No. 1180 COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON TRANSMOUNTAIN WATERDIVERSION PROJECT JULY 6, 1937.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. ZIMMERMAN, from the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 2681) The Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2681) to authorize the construction of the Colorado-Big Thompson transmountain water-diversion project as a Federal reclamation project, after holding extensive hearings on the subject matter thereof, report the same favorably without amendment and unanimously recommend that the bill do pass the House. STATEMENT OF FACTS COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON RECLAMATION PROJECT The project, the construction of which this bill seeks to authorize, has been surveyed and studied with great care for 2 years by the Bureau of Reclamation and full and elaborate reports, plans, designs, and detailed estimates have been made. A summary of the nature and character of the project is set forth in Senate Document No. 80 of the Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, which document is referred to in the bill for the purpose of describing the project. In the synopsis of the report of the Colorado-Big Thompson project, filed with the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, it is stated: The pioneer settlers in this western area came here originally to find gold. Large numbers, when they did not find it, drifted on to other "diggings." A few saw the possibilities of the combination of land and irrigation water to produce foodstuffs needed by the gold miner and gold seeker. While their income was not as speculative, it was far more certain. Others encouraged by the example of these earlier pioneers followed in their footsteps until in the year of highest gold production, 1900, the total mineral production of the State was $50,614,000, while her total agriculture amounted to only $25,500,000. In the year 1916, however, the mineral production was $49,200,000 and the products of agriculture amounted to $75,300,000. This project is in need of supplemental water not because of land exploiting or speculation, but through the gradual change to a more permanent type of agriculture requiring more and later water, and to the gradual diminishing stream flow over the last 16-year period. It is not the object of this project to bring new lands under cultivation but to stabilize and make secure the production on lands already now under the irrigation systems which are provided with inadequate water supplies. There are 175,000 people living within the boundaries of this project, a greater portion of whom derive their livelihood either directly or indirectly from the irrigated lands and the attending industries. The counties of Boulder, Larimer, Weld, Morgan, Logan, Sedgwick, and the portion of Washington County that is irrigated, in 1936 had an assessed valuation of $186,000,000 which does not include the $34,239,000 that has been put into their irrigation systems which are not taxable. This area feed-lot fattens about one-fourth of all the sheep and one-eleventh of all the cattle in the United States, and during the 10-year period, in addition to the crop raised and fed in the area, an average of $3,500,000 per year was spent outside the area for fattening feeds, mostly for corn from the Middle West and cottonseed from the South. Because this project is now well settled, having developed its necessary institutions that make up a going social and economic state, it has the following outstanding features: The annual losses in crop value now due to lack of supplemental water measures one-sixth of the cost of this project. The agricultural and livestock resources are developed to their highest degree with water available. The supplemental water supply is adequate and dependable. one season's requirements stored in advance of use. There would be There would be an increase in tax income for both State and Nation. The area affords ample security for repayment. Adequate protection is provided for water users on the Colorado River. Greater social stability is assured through increased income due to the reduction in drought hazards and higher priced crops. The cost of this project is insignificant when compared to the wealth created for the generations to come. In time the mineral wealth of this great State will be exhausted but her lands, if properly farmed, and her waters, if properly conserved, will be an ever-increasing means for the production of wealth and social security for all her people. The engineers of the Reclamation Bureau in their report make the following statement in reference to the effect of the construction of this project upon the Rocky Mountain National Park: Every effort has been made in the survey and design of this project to not disturb the natural beauties of the Rocky Mountain National Park and its surrounding areas. The Continental Divide tunnel was lengthened 1.6 miles in order that its extremities should fall outside the boundaries of the park. The conduit leading from the east portal of the tunnel to power plant no. 1 is to be buried and the surface landscaped, through the area authorized by Congress to be added to the park. The waste from the east portal of the tunnel placed in this area is to be terraced and planted with evergreen trees. The waste from the west portal is to be used to fill up some low areas and render the area suitable for the building of summer homes. The approach to the western gateway of the Rocky Mountain National Park will be along the shores of Shadow Mountain Lake with its fluctuation of only 1 foot instead of the swampy area that now breeds mosquitoes and exposes mud flats in low water. The bill authorizing the creation of the Rocky Mountain National Park reserved the right for the Bureau of Reclamation to survey and construct an irrigation project within the boundaries of the park. The act of Congress creating the Rocky Mountain National Park, enacted January 26, 1915, and being chapter 19, section 1, volume 38, statutes 798 (title 16, sec. 191, U. S. C.), contains the following provision: "United States Reclamation Service may enter upon and util ize for flowage or other purposes any area within said park which may be necessary for the development and maintenance of a Government reclamation project." The Colorado statute ceding jurisdiction over park area is found in Colorado Session Laws, 1929, page 475. It may be added to what has been said by the engineers in their report that this project will deprive the Rocky Mountain National Park of no water whatsoever. The major portion of the water to be diverted by the project falls outside of the park area and that portion which falls within the park is only diverted from streams after they have left the boundaries of the park on their way to the Gulf of California. The tunnel through which the water is carried will be on an average several thousand feet below the surface of the park. The tunnel will pass through solid granite rocks of the Continental Divide. It will not, therefore, be observable nor will it have any effect upon any part or aspect of the park surface. The report of the Bureau of Reclamation upon this project closes with the following conclusions: (1) There is a large area (615,000 acres) of irrigated land in northeastern Colorado, the major portion of which has an inadequate water supply. (2) The feasible storage possibilities with the available water supply in the drainage area have been exhausted. (3) There is at least an available water supply of 310,000 acre-feet on the upper drainage area of the Colorado River that can be diverted to supplement the present water supply on the eastern slope. (4) That the diversion of this quantity of water from the Colorado River watershed will not interfere with or encroach upon the present or future irrigation along the Colorado River and tributaries within the State with the protection provided in the Green Mountain Reservoir. (5) That the plan for the project here laid out appears entirely feasible from a construction point of view. (6) That the cost of construction estimated at $2 per acre-foot per annum over the repayment period of 40 years is less than storage water is now commanding and that it will increase the crop values five or more times this annual cost, showing its economic worth. (7) That the power developments that may be made in the six power plants will produce a large quantity of cheap hydroelectric power that will materially benefit Denver and a large surrounding territory. (8) That the revenues from power plant no. 1 will pay for the power features as set up under the initial power development and furnish energy for pumping at Granby pumping plant free and will also pay for the operation of the system to the point where the water is diverted from the Big Thompson to the storage reservoirs. (9) That the cost of the irrigation feature of the project is within the ability of the water users to pay. The Senate, in the Seventy-fourth Congress, passed an amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill authorizing the construction of this project. This amendment, however, was not accepted by the House of Representatives. There have been for some years differences between the citizens and water users on the eastern and western sides of the Continental Divide in Colorado as to the terms and conditions under which this project should be constructed. These differences have been completely adjusted and representatives of both sections in the State of Colorado interested in this matter have agreed in not only approving but urging its construction. The following letters evidence this agreement: Hon. HAROLD L. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior. June 11, 1937. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: There is attached hereto the portion of the report on the Colorado-Big Thompson project in Colorado covering the principles and stipulations governing the construction and operation of said project for the protection of the rights and interests dependent on the Colorado River in Colorado. The provisions contained therein have been considered by the Northern Colorado Water Users' Association, representing the irrigation and other interests on the eastern slope in Colorado, and we respectfully submit that they are satisfactory and meet the approval of said association. We ask that acknowledgment be made of this communication. NORTHERN COLORADO WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, MOSES E. SMITH, Vice President. JUNE 11, 1937. Hon. HAROLD L. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: There is attached hereto the portion of the report on the Colorado-Big Thomspon project in Colorado covering the principles and stipulations governing the construction and operation of said project for the protection of the rights and interests dependent on the Colorado River in Colorado. The provisions contained therein have been considered by the Western Slope Protective Association, representing the irrigation and other interests on the western slope in Colorado, and we respectfully submit that they are satisfactory and meet the approval of said association. We ask that acknowledgment be made of this communication. The WESTERN SLOPE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, CLIFFORD H. STONE, Director. A. C. SUDAN, Special Representative of Grand County. In the synopsis of the report, which is printed as Senate Document No. 80, certain general principles governing the manner of construction and operation of the project are set forth. The report summarizes these primary purposes as follows: The project, therefore, must be operated in such a manner as to most nearly effect the following primary purposes: 1. To preserve the vested and future rights in irrigation. 2. To preserve the fishing and recreational facilities and the scenic attractions of Grand Lake, the Colorado River, and the Rocky Mountain National Park. 3. To preserve the present surface elevations of the water in Grand Lake and to prevent a variation in these elevations greater than their normal fluctuation. 4. To so conserve and make use of these waters for irrigation, power, industrial development, and other purposes, as to create the greatest benefits. 5. To maintain conditions of river flow for the benefit of domestic and sanitary uses of this water. These primary purposes and the manner of their accomplishment are set forth in detail in the report. The committee therefore recommend that the bill (S. 2681) be passed. о COAST GUARD STATION, FORT MYERS, FLA. JULY 6, 1937.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. PETERSON of Florida, from the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 6048] The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6048) to provide for the establishment of a Coast Guard station in the vicinity of Fort Myers, Fla., having had the same under consideration report thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a Coast Guard station in the vicinity of Fort Myers, Fla., at such point as the Commandant of the Coast Guard may recommend. The bill was referred to the Treasury Department and the report of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, dated June 17, 1937, and appended as a part of this report, sets out fully the need for the establishment of the Coast Guard station proposed. It will be noted that the Acting Secretary of the Treasury advises that the measure is in accord with the program of the President. In view of the apparent need for and the advantages to be derived from the establishment of a Coast Guard station at or near Fort Myers, Fla., your committee is glad of this opportunity to recommend favorable action on the bill (II. R. 6048) at an early date. The report of the Treasury Department is as follows: Hon. S. O. Bland, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of April 2, 1937, enclosing a copy of bill (H. R. 6048, 75th Cong., 1st sess.), to provide for the establishment of a Coast Guard station in the vicinity of Fort Myers, Fla., and requesting to be furnished the views and recommendations of this Department thereon. |