« PředchozíPokračovat »
for agriculture or for ag-based communities, nor for them to survive. I believe that it is immoral for large cities to rob the future of small towns for the sake of growth.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "Encouragement of agriculture I deem as one of the essential principles of our government and consequently those which ought to shape this administration.” Jefferson believed that the most moral society was one where agriculture is a predominant vocation. I agree with Jefferson; this is a moral issue.
Through the actions of the Bureau of Reclamation and thirsty cities, farmers and small-town folks are being kicked out to the curb in towns like Rocky Ford so that urban areas can continue to grow and build another strip mall. When the farmer shuts down his operation when the water is moved, so does the fertilizer salesman, the banker, the tractor, the tractor repairman, and the farm workers all lose their jobs. The dried-up farm community can never return to their heyday.
And for whose benefit? We know for whose benefit. And to add insult to injury, the Bureau of Reclamation has been complicit in moving water with annual one-year leases with Aurora since 1986 and is now proposing a 40-year lease that is almost completed. The Bureau has not made the case why they have the authority to contract with Aurora using Fry-Ark facilities. Furthermore, I would argue today that the Bureau doesn't have the authority to do so. I'm anxious to hear the testimony today of the witnesses that determined the original intent of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the authority that the Bureau has to contract with out-of-basin entities.
One thing I know for sure. John Singletary, who now is the president of the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District, didn't help his parents to sell these gold frying pans so that water could be moved out of the Arkansas Basin.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:]
Talking Points of The Honorable John Salazar, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Colorado • As a young boy in the Arkansas Basin, John Singletary sold gold frying pans • Little Johny dreamed of a day when farmers in the Lower Arkansas Valley
would never have to worry about future water needs • He remembers going to Rocky Ford with his father and seeing a booming farm
town, which seemed to have melon stands on every street corner. • In 1962 President Kennedy came to Pueblo to sign the Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project into law. • The Fry-Ark project would be built to deliver water to Agricultural based com
munities East of Pueblo. • In Committee Hearings, the legendary Congressman and Interior Chairman
Wayne Aspinall laid out his argument for the Fry-Ark Project. • Aspinall stated that only 17,000 acre feet of water would be used only for the
municipalities in the Arkansas basin; and of that only 5000 acre feet outside the Lower Ark for Colorado Springs. He said that of the 219,100 acre feet of usable project water that an overwhelming majority of 184,600 acre feet would be designated for irrigated agriculture. That's roughly 85% of the water for agri
culture. (source, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation Interior Committee, June 9-11, 1953) • Simply put, the Fry-Ark was approved by Congress and signed by President
Kennedy for the primary purpose of serving agriculture in the Arkansas Basin. • Today, I am sad to say that agriculture is no longer the focus of the Fry-Ark
project. Even worse, the Project is turning into an instrument to move water from Agriculturally-based communities like Crowley County and Rocky Ford to
growing metropolitan sprawling communities—sometimes out of basin. • Promises made to these farm communities have not made up for the fact of the
total community damage caused by their dry-up • And, while Aurora cannot legally purchase transbasin Fry-Ark Project water,
the Bureau has allowed Aurora to utilize the Fry-Ark facilities to move clean
Mountain water via exchanges from water they've purchased off the farm. • The water taken off the farm will never return. • The water taken out of the basin will never return. • This trend leaves no hope for agriculturally based communities to survive. • It is immoral for large cities to rob the future from small towns for the sake
of growth • Thomas Jefferson said “Encouragement of agriculture...I deem as one of the es
sential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration.” Jefferson believed the most moral society is one
where agriculture is the predominant vocation. • I agree with Jefferson, this is a moral issue. Through the actions of the Bureau
of Reclamation and thirsty cities, farmers and small town folk are being kicked to the curb in towns like Rocky Ford so that Aurora can build another strip
mall. • When the farmer shuts down his operation when the water is moved, so does
the fertilizer sales man, the banker, the tractor repair man and farm workers lose their jobs. The dried up farm community can never return to their heyday.
And for whose benefit? • To add insult to injury, the Bureau or Reclamation has been complicit in mov
ing water with annual one-year leases with Aurora since 1986 and with a new
40-year lease that's almost completed. • The Bureau has not made the case why they have authority to contract with
Aurora using Fry-Ark facilities. • Furthermore, I argue that the Bureau doesn't have the authority to do so. • I am anxious to hear the testimony of today's witnesses to determine the origi
nal intent of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the authority that the Bureau
has to contract with out of basin entities • One thing I know for sure, John Singletary didn't help his parents sell golden
frying pans so Aurora can transfer water from the Arkansas Basin.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Now I will move on to Congressman Mark Udall.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Madam Chairwoman, I would ask the panel's consent that my entire statement would be submitted for the record.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. UDALL. Thank you. I want to keep my remarks relatively short so that we can hear from this very influential and well-informed group of witnesses that we have today and then we can open it up for questions and comments.
In my remarks that I prepared for the record, I harkened back to the days of the initial approvals of the Fry-Ark Project, and I note that my Uncle Stewart, who was John Kennedy's Secretary of Interior, played a role in seeing this project come to fruition, but also my father, Morris Udall, who worked closely with Chairman Aspinall and had great respect for Chairman Aspinall, noted in a newsletter to his constituents that after the approval of the legislation that the only way that it moved forward was because the house delegation in particular in Colorado came to common consensus on how to move forward. And I think that's both the challenge and the opportunity that faces us here today as we hold this very important hearing.
If we can find consensus—and I believe we can the future is bright. But that consensus has to be based, I believe, on the needs and the outlooks and the sensibilities of particularly the people who live in the Arkansas Valley drainages.
And with that spirit, Chairwoman, I'd like to yield back any time that I do have remaining. But again, I want to thank all of you for coming out, for being involved in this way. There's nothing more important to us in the west. The lifeblood of our communities, the lifeblood of what makes us westerners of course is water.
I was even-Congressman Salazar, Congressman Lamborn, Congressman Perlmutter, for some reason I was dreaming about the water last night and preparing for this hearing today. And I think we all should be of course incredibly thankful how green it is all over this wonderful State of Colorado as we experienced a wet-actually a normal winter, a normal spring, and I'm certainly thankful that there's grass for our cattle, there's water for our reservoirs, and there will be water in which we can fish and enjoy the great outdoors in this State of Colorado. I know we come here with the same purpose in line, which is to protect all of the communities of Colorado together as Coloradans.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back to you whatever time I have remaining.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:) Statement of The Honorable Mark Udall, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for bringing our Subcommittee to Pueblo for today's oversight hearing.
I join my delegation colleagues in welcoming you to Colorado and particularly to the great valley of the Arkansas River, which is linked with our Western Slope by the Fryingpan-Arkansas project that is the focus of today's hearing.
I think today's hearing will help us to understand not just how the project has developed in the 45 years since President Kennedy signed its authorizing legislation, but also the role it can play in this new 21st Century. And I hope the result will be to lay a sound foundation for decisions the subcommittee and the Congress will be asked to make in the near future.
Taken together, the witnesses scheduled to testify no only possess great expertise regarding the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project's past and present but also represent a range of views about its future.
I look forward to listening to their testimony and learning from what they have to tell us.
But before yielding back my time, I want to share with everyone here today a bit of history about the project that I think is not only relevant for today's hearing but that can perhaps stand us in good stead as we go forward.
The final step in authorizing the Fryingpan-Arkansas project was taken by President John F. Kennedy, when he signed the authorizing legislation in August, 1962.
But that was hardly the beginning of the story. As Mr. Long notes in his statement, the idea of a big Reclamation project to bring West Slope water into the Arkansas valley originated many years earlier, and in supporting it President Kennedy—and his Secretary of the Interior, my uncle Stewart Udall—followed the lead of the Eisenhower Administration.
And the idea had Congressional support, especially in the Senate. But for many years, the Colorado delegation was not of one mind on the subject, because of concerns about the different effects the project could have on different parts of the State.
Those concerns were particularly important for Congressman Wayne Aspinall, who was one of my predecessors—and one of Representative Salazar's as well—in representing Coloradans living west of the Continental Divide.
In 1959, Representative Aspinall became the Chairman of what was then the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and now is the Committee on Natural Resources. As such, he played a key role in developing the provisions that enabled the Colorado delegation to come together in support of a bill to authorize the Fryingpan-Arkansas project and in having that legislation favorably reported from the committee and then winning its passage by the House of Representatives on June 13, 1962.
The bill's passage in the House was noted in a newsletter to his constituents from another Member of Chairman Aspinall's committee my father, Morris K. Udall, of Arizona.
He had strongly supported the legislation, speaking in favor of it on the House floor, and hailed its passage by the House as “an immensely important political breakthrough” and a precedent for other reclamation projects.
And in explaining the reason for that breakthrough, he directed his constituents' attention to what he thought-and, looking back, what I think today—was the key part of the Committee's report on the bill. That part of the report said—and here let me quote it directly
"The Fryingpan-Arkansas project has been under study and consideration for over 30 years. It has been ready for authorization for 8 years. However, it was not until recently that all interested parties in parties in the State of Colorado were able to agree on the development.” My father's message to his constituents was that it was agreement among the Colorado delegation in Congress that made passage of the bill —and construction of the project-possible.
That was what he saw as one of the lessons of the legislation President Kennedy signed 45 years ago. And, in my opinion, that same message bears repeating here today, not just to my constituents, but to all Coloradans.
As a practical matter, I think none of us who represent some Coloradans can win passage of legislation dealing with the Fryingpan-Arkansas project-or anything else that affects people in more than one part of the state-unless that legislation is acceptable to everyone in the delegation. And as a matter of public policy, I think it would be wrong to even try to pass such legislation otherwise.
In Wayne Aspinall's time, one of the hurdles that had to be overcome to develop that consensus was concern about the adverse effects on the areas from which waters would be diverted. And in the years since, as population growth and changes in our economy have increased the demand for water in our cities, towns, and suburbs, those concerns have become even greater and more widespread. The demise of plans for a big Two Forks reservoir and the rejection of Referendum A by voters in every Colorado county are signals that times have changed. In some ways, that can make it harder to achieve consensus, but it does not change the fact that consensus is needed.
Speaking for myself, I want everyone to know that I am ready to work with all my colleagues to try to achieve consensus, but that in doing so I will never forget the need to carefully consider the impacts on all concerned, including those in the areas from which water is proposed for diversion.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I look forward to hearing from our wit
FOR RELEASE June 21, 1962
“Out of the Fryingpan-Hope and a Lesson for Arizona" The growth of our West is to a great degree the story of reclamation. Roosevelt, Hoover, Grand Coulee, and the other projects have nearly exhausted the choice, lowcost dam sites. Future projects pose more difficult engineering problems. Water must be carried longer distances; new engineering ideas are needed to help put the water where the people are.
On June 13, the House voted to bring into being a sound engineering dreamthe Fryingpan-Arkansas project. If the Senate goes along this project will bring water and power to semi-arid southeastern Colorado. Water will be collected high in the Rocky Mountains on the west side of the Continental Divide. It will be sent churning eastward through a six-mile-long tunnel drilled through the Rockies at an altitude of 10,000 feet. Then the water will tumble down the eastern slope through a series of canals, reservoirs and power generating plants and into the Arkansas River.
Farmers who today don't know if they'll be able to harvest the crops they now plant will be assured of water to stabilize production. Colorado Springs, Pueblo and other thirsty municipalities will have more and better water to supply increasing populations. Badly-needed energy for farms, homes and industries will be created. Disastrous floods will be curtailed. The minim flow of water needed for fishing and other recreation activities will be assured.
In the 10-12 years needed to complete the project, the federal government will invest $170 million. Over a 50-year span, $153 million of this will be repaid. (Only monies invested in fish and wildlife, recreation and flood control are not reimbursable).
The Fryingpan-Arkansas project has been under study for three decades. It has been officially before Congress since 1953. President Eisenhower strongly supported it. President Kennedy wholeheartedly endorses it. Yet the project drew heavy fire in the House from those who ridiculed the idea of a trans-mountain tunnel as a “Rube Goldberg Project” and those who asserted the $170 million will simply be money thrown away. Members of Congress are always looking for “economy votes" and reclamation is often a likely target—especially from the big city Eastern members. One of the principal critics of the tunnel idea was a Long Beach Congressman whose people turn on their taps to draw water which has come 200 miles across the desert from the Colorado River through many mountain tunnels.
In the House debate on this bill, I made these statements:
“Based upon some of the debate here today, one might assume that this was $170 million we are going to throw down a rat hole somewhere. Reclamation does not cost; it pays. This is not a drain on the taxpayer. This will be paid back-nearly all of it paid back-with interest.”
“Let us go back to 1911. If one had been asked to select the 10 least likely places in America to be major cities, I think Phoenix would have headed this list. It was a dry city of 12,000; when these people occasionally did get water it came all at once-right in the living room and flooded everyone out. It was a hot and barren country. When Teddy Roosevelt and other farsighted leaders—and I can hear the opponents in the Congress in those early days laughing at this Rube Goldberg project in Arizona-supported this type of reclamation, they probably did not fully realize that would happen. Yet this first major project has now paid off. It cost $20 million. The federal government takes out of Phoenix $200 million every year in federal income taxes. Phoenix has 700,000 people; it is one of the nation's major cities. Phoenix would be a little town today except for the foresight of the Congress back in the 1900's when it decided to invest $20 million.”
The Fryingpan-Arkansas project diversion idea is in many respects a scientific and technological breakthrough. Passage by the House is an immensely important political breakthrough—one that bodes well for the $1 billion Central Arizona Project which will come before Congress if the Supreme Court acts favorably in the California-Arizona water sui The lesson for Arizonans is contained in the Interior Committee report on the bill:
“The Fryingpan-Arkansas project has been under study and consideration for over 30 years. It has been ready for authorization for 8 years. However, it was not until recently that all interested parties in the State of Colorado were able to agree on the development.”.
In Arizona we have achieved substantial unity over the Central Arizona Project. The more we strengthen that unity, the better our chances for getting the financing which will bring in the water we must have to expand our state's economy.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congressman Udall.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED PERLMUTTER, A REPRESENTA
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And it gives me great pleasure to be here for this hearing. I had another hearing in Pueblo a number of years ago when I was in the State senate, and it was an issue where water was at the forefront just as it is today. And I think it's key for all of us to really