Page images
PDF
EPUB

ALAMO RESERVOIR ARIZONA (Continuation of Planning)

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: This project is approximately 70 miles southeast of Kingman, Arizona,
in a narrow gorge at river mile 38 on the Bill Willlams River, Arizona, a tributary of the Colorado
River. The plan of Improvement provides for a flood-control dam and reservoir which can later be
moditied to meet the requirements of flood control, Irrigation and power development.
AUTHORIZATION: 1944 Flood Control Act

· BENEFIT-COSI RATIO: 1.3 to 1 . SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA

[blocks in formation]

JUSTIFICATION: Construction of the project will provide one of the improvements proposed under the water treaty with Mexico and is recommended by the Bureau of Reclamation in conjunction with regulation of Parker Dam and development along the lower Colorado River. The need for flood storage on the Bill Williams River for flood control of the lower Colorado River be low Parker Dam is also recognized by the International Boundary and Water Commission. The Bureau assumed early construction of this project in its levee construction program near Yuma, Arizona (population 24,000). Large flood control benefits will result through prevention of overt low and prevention of damages to lands, improvements, levees and extensive irrigation works in the agricultural and urban areas along the lower Colorado River, Projection of the 1927 storm discharge against known flood-plain conditions shows that damages estimated at $1,800,000 would be prevented by construction of this project. Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $605,000. Although not assigned a monetary value, additional benefits will result from reduction of the rate of siltation at Parker Dam, and from bank stabilization through better control of channel flow in the lower Colorado River.

NON-FODERAL COST: None, STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: Mojave and Yuma Counties are the legally responsible agencies under Sec. 45-2323, Arizona, revised Statutes of 1956. Pending completion of final planning on the project no request has been made of local interests for formal assurances. However, the Boards of Supervisors of Mojave and Yuma Counties, representing local interests, indicated in November 1960 their willingness to comply with the items of local cooperation required by the authorizing legislation, COMPARISON OF FODERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $21,300,000 is an increase of $500,000 over the latest estilnate ($10,800,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes an increase of $128,000 for lands and damages based on recent field appraisal and an increase of $372,000 for higher price levels.

GMr. Pocated to the mature, they sheet, the

Mr. PILLION. What will be the storage capacity of the Alamo Reservoir, General MacDonnell ?

General MacDONNELL. 1,077,000 acre-feet at full pool.
Mr. PILLION. How much of that will be used for irrigation?

General MacDONNELL. That is a question that has not been resolved. The Bureau of Reclamation expects to complete their study in about a month. They are studying both yield and use of irrigational water. It will be resolved this year, but it has not yet been. At the present time it is set up purely as a flood control project.

Mr. PILLION. How much will the local contributions be, in your estimation ?

General MacDONNELL. As purely a flood control structure, as presently shown in the justification sheet, there would be none. As a multiple-purpose structure, they would pay in accordance with any costs allocated to the municipal, industrial, or irrigational

Mr. PILLION. Does this not make it very difficult for the Federal Government to get its proper and appropriate reimbursement for this type of construction? We build it first, then you have the water there that is available for irrigation, but you have not completed any contracts for that, so there you are sitting with this immense amount of water storage. The users then have all the bargaining strength and you do not have any. You practically have to give away this irrigational water. They can say, “Well, you just try to sell it.” You have your water there, you cannot use it to any advantage other than to flood control so the bargaining position of the Federal Government is a very poor one because of lack of advance commitments as to the water sale. I think it is a very poor way of doing it.

General MACDONNELL. As you know, sir, these are planning funds and not construction funds. By the time the planning is completed I would expect that we would then know how much of the benefits should be, if any, to irrigation, and under the rules set forth by the committee, if there is an allocation to irrigation, then we should have firm assurances before we go further.

TUCSON DIVERSION CHANNEL

Mr. RABAUT. The Tucson diversion channel. We will insert pages 19 and 20 in the record.

(The justification follows:)

TUCSON DIVERSION CHANNEL, ARIZONA

(Continuation of Planning)

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: This project is located on the outskirts of Tucson, Arizona, and is tribu-
tary to Santa Cruz River (Gila River Basin). The plan of improvement provides a detention basin,
levees, and channels which intercept the flows of Tucson Arroyo, Railroad Wash and Julian Wash and
diverts them around the City of Tucson to Santa Cruz River.

[blocks in formation]

JUSTIFICATION: The project will provide flood protection to a major portion of the cities of Tucson
and South Tucson and surrounding developed urban areas including U. S. Highways Nos. 80 and 89,
SPRR Ma in line, SPRR Nogales Branch, U. S, Veterans Hospital, var ious industrial plants and essential
utilities. Tucson and its urban area (population more than 240,000) has more than tripled since
1950 and all forecasts indicate that the growth will continue. Large benefits would accrue to more
than 3,300 acres of residential, business, and industrial lands; and benefits would increase in
future years because of continued extensive development in the area. Flood history prior to 1940
has not been reliably documented, but measurable damages (about $680,000) resulted from five storms
since that time. During the 1945 flood, 10 lives were lost. The latest flood (1953) produced
estimated damages amounting to $200,000. A recurrence of that flood under present conditions of
deve lopment in the flood plain would cause damages estimated at $650,000, of which $520,000 would
be preventable with the project,

Project: TUCSON DIVERSION CHANNEL. ARIZONA (Cont':

NON-FEDERAL COSTS: Local Interests have spent $1,413,000 for diversion channel right-of-way and construction which will be incorporated into the project. Additional costs to local interests of complying with the requirements of local cooperation as set forth in the author izing legislation are as follows:

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon completion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance and operation will total $10,000.

STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: Pima County, the city of Tucson, and the Town of South Tucson passed a joint resolution at the time of the survey report to meet requirements. Pima County, the legally responsible agency, adopted a resolution 8 April 1958 to meet the required local cooperation.

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $4,740,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress.

« PreviousContinue »