sign in sign up
<<
Home , Parker Dam

What Is the Central Project?

It is a so-called reclamation project to take River water to land in the central part of Arizona, near Phoenix. The principal excuse advanced by the project proponents for its construc­ tion is to provide a "rescue" supply of water to 226,000 acres of war-boom land in Arizona. On this basis the cost of such un­ precedented government "relief" is $1, 838 an acre for the irrigation features alone. Comparison with official records shows that this per-acre cost is I I 00% greater than the average for all other western reclamation projects to date. No public lands will be opened for entry to war veterans or other citizens under provisions of the project. It will be used exclusively for the benefit of present land owners. More than one-half of the land involved is owned by 420 individuals who would receive average benefits of $550,000 each, at the expense of the Nation's taxpayers. . According to an official estimate made by the Secretary of the Interior, American taxpayers would be required to pay $2,075, 729 ,000 in additional taxes to subsidize the Arizona project. What the taxpayer in each state would have to pay is shown on the reverse side of this sheet. Principal construction features of the costly project are described in Senate Bill 75, now pending in Congress. They include (I) Bridge Canyon and ~ower plant on the Colorado River, 120 miles above Hoover (Boulder) Dam, (2) Parker pump lift, to take irrigation water from the Colorado River near Parker Dam and Ii# it to a total height of 985 feet, (3) a 300-mile system of canals and pipe lines to deliver water for raising ordinary field crops, such as alfalfa, hay and potatoes, on Arizona lands. Strenuous attempts to get the fantastic project approved by Congress are being made by Arizona promoters in the face of the defense emergency. Construction of the huge system would consume vast quantities of critical materials ·and would add to the drain on manpower without contributing in any way to the defense effort. In peace time or in war time, the has no justifica­ tion from the standpoint of national economy or the Nation's taxpayers. Senate Bill 75, and its companion bill, H.R.1500, should be defeated. Write to your Congressman today and let him know that you are strongly op­ posed to the wasteful government spending and the higher taxes called for in those bills.

COLORADO RIVER ASSOCIATION, 306 W. 3rd ST., LOS ANGELES 13, CALIF. Cost To Nation's Taxpayers-By Stafes­ Of Central Arizona Proiect ····~@~···· Official Statement By Secretary of Interior Indicates Extra Tax Burden of $2,075,729,000 for Interest Alone if Congress Approves Fantastic Proiect Bill S. 7 5 ····~@~···· State's % of Total Cost to Taxpayers State's % of Total Cost to Taxpayers State (See Note 1 below) (See Note 2 below) State (See Note 1 below) (See Note 2 below) Alabama 1.17 $ 24,286,000 New Hampshire .29 6,020,000 Arizona .37 7,680,000 New Jersey 3.29 68,291,000 Arkansas .72 14,945,000 .28 5,812,000 8.32 172,701,000 New York 14.67 304,509,000 C_oh:trado.~-----·80__ _ 16,606 000 North Caroli.=n=a __ 1.59 33 004 000 Connecticut 1.67 34,665,000 North Dakota .34 7,057,000 Dclaware AO 8,303,000 Ohio 5.78 119,977,000 Florida 1.29 26,777,000 Oklahoma 1.17 24,286,000 Georgia 1.40 29,060,000 Oregon 1.04 21,588,000 Idaho .32 6,642,000 Pennsylvania 7.62 158, 171,000 Illinois 7.59 157,548,000 Rhode Island .56 11,624,000 Indiana 2.29 47,534,000 South Carolina .76 15,776,000 Iowa 1.58 32,797,000 South Dakota .36 7,473,000 Kansas 1.15 23,871,000 Tennessee 1.37 28,438,000 Kentucky 1.20 · 24,909,000 Texas 4.38 90,917,000 Louisiana 1.22 25,324,000 .34 7,056,000 Maine .44 9,133,000 Vermont .18 3,736,000 Maryland 1.68 34,872,000 Virginia 1.49 30,928,000 Massachusetts 3.40 70,575,000 Washington 1.65 34,250,000 Michigan 4.71 97,767,000 West Virginia .92 19,097,000 Minnesota 1.86 38,609,000 Wisconsin 2.10 43,590,000 Mississippi .71 14,738,000 .18 3,736,000 Missouri 2.53 52,516,000 Dist. of Columbia } 1.48 30,721,000 Montana .35 7,265,000 Hawaii and Alaska Nebraska .86 17,851,000 .13 2,698,000 U.S. TOTAL 100.00 $2,075, 729 ,000

Note 1 - Percentages of total tax burden that each state will bear were computed by the Council of State Chambers of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Note 2- Cost to the nation's taxpayers of $2,075,729,000 is an official estimate of Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary of the Interior. It is based on the provisions of S. 75 (Central Arizona Project Bill) and the following specified conditions: construction cost estimate of $708,780,000 made by the Bureau of Reclamation (Senate Report No. 832, 81 st Congress, I st Session); an interest rate of 21/i %; an eight-year construction period; and a 75 year financing period. The Secretary's statement appears in his letter dated June 28, 1950, to J. Hardin Peterson, Chairman of the House Public Lands Committee. The statement was approved by the Bureau of the Budget.

These figures prove tha.t the Central Arizona Proiect will not be self-supporting, as claimed by its promoters. Actually, it will cost taxpayers of all the states BILLIONS. Spending this huge sum will not help the current National defense effort in a.ny way. Instead, it would divert and use up manpower and large supplies of steel, cement, copper and other critical ma.terials. ( See other side) ('!4'... _ 43 1-52