Show A LONG SHOT Pack Creek Report is Unfavorable BY SAM TAYLOR According to a Status Report Re He port published by the Bureau Dureau of Reclamation In February and just now being circulated In the local area possibilities for lor the construction of the wanted long Pack Creek Wa Wa- ter tor Project are ale slim sUm at least In the future It U Is recommended that neither the Lower Valley nor Spanish Valley development be authorized at this time but that the question of authorization authorization author author- be left open for reconsideration reconsideration re reo re- re consideration at such time as justified by the economic needs of the Nation or further Information on the subject This was the summary placed on the report by E E. E O. O Larson Larson Lar Lar- son director of Region Four for the Bureau Dureau In other words word unless the Federal government h. h has money money mo mo- ney ny to burn on reclamation projects the development of the local loul 3 2 million project doesn't enthuse the engin engineers Nfl en who made mad the th most recent re re- recent cent report It appears that on projects of this nature the government must be shown where the Initial In Dial Wal construction costs can be repaired over a 50 year per lod iod At one time after a n 1953 preliminary study It looked as If there might be a possibility ity by of repaying a substantial portion of the costs of the Pack Creek project But the February Status Report points out that Irrigators would beable be beable beable able to pay only about 13 percent per percent percent cent of the Irrigation construction tion cost In Spanish Valley Vaney where In the Lower Valley they would not be able to repay repay repay re re- re- re pay any of the Initial cost Tho The remaining costs then would hive have to be b. absorbed by the Colorado River Basin Fund If the development were wr constructed as a participating participating par par- project of the Colorado Co Co- lorado lordo River Storage Project The difference In opinion between be be- between tween the 1953 1933 and 1959 reports reports reports re re- re- re ports stems steins from the fact that acreage considered for Irrigation under the most recent re- re recent recent re re- cent report Is greatly reduced from that originally consider consider- ed In fact where some 2100 new acres of land were thought to be Irrigable In 1953 only acres are now considered for fill fall or supplemental supplemental supplemental supple supple- mental irrigation purposes Since flood nood control was not considered at all aU In the report re re- port and since recreation and wildlife development plays such sucha a minor part development of farm lands must be counted on heavily to carry cany the bur bur- den For those who have not followed the progress on the proposed project during the past put several y years It would briefly consist of the following fol fol- lowing 1 Construction of a dam darn on Mill 1 creek just east of Moab Moa to store run-off run waters from that stream during winter and flood nood seasons 2 Construction of a smaller diversion dam dank might Ight miles mUes upstream upstream up up- stream from the larger reservoir reservoir re re- which would put normal normal normal nor nor- mal flow now through a tunnel and series of canals on upper val vat valley le ley lands 3 Through the use of or- dikes drains pumps and a series of canals the reclaiming of lands lying between Moab and the Colorado river rIter now covered by swamps Recreation would be provided provid provid- ed on the reservoir created by bythe bythe bythe the large Plainfield dam just east cast of Moab and the National Nation Nation- al at Park Service has listed fa facUlties facilities facilities fa- fa needed there to provide pro vide for boating and fishing I The more than page lib report report re port part is detailed and many charts covering every phase of the proposed project t. t TP To the casual observer parts of It are difficult to understand under under- stand as to overall relation relation- ship But it is I. not difficult to interpret the final dallons Unable to determine why irrigable acreage had been so soo drastically reduced in the latest la latest la- la test report port the County Com Commission mission through Sen Frank E. E Moss contacted Mr Larson Las Lar Lasson son for tor an explanation In an answer Mr Larson stated The rile results from findings of the more det detailed ed project investigations that pre pre- preceded preceded ceded the of the later la la- try ter report He lie pointed out that when detailed studies were ere made the project was not favorable ta as had been in in- indicated in indicated by the earlier evalu In view of f the high construction cost t per acre for forthe forthe forthe the Spanish Valley Valle segment and the fact that thai the Moab Valley segment could not pay operations and aM maintenance costs cost we s saw w no alternative but ut to report unfavorably on the pr project je t Jn tn our 1959 1059 report the dI director tor stated The question now is w whether ther or not continuing work I on a local level is betting on ona ona ona a dead pony or on a long shot According to County Commis Commission sion slon Chairman H. H D. D B Evans the commission has decided to keep plugging for tor the project as long as there is a chance chuce that it might be built |