History
Cochiti Dam was authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1960 for a construction cost of US$94.4 million dollars. The act was further amended in 1964 to allocate water resources for the development of fish and wildlife resources as well as recreational resources. 50,000 acre feet (62,000,000 m3) of water was allocated under this amendment for initial pool fill and sufficient resources were allocated to offset annual evaporation losses. This water was to come from water previously diverted into the Rio Grande system by Public Law 87-843 of 1962 from water in the Colorado River basin via the San Juan-Chama Project across the Continental Divide.
Construction began in 1965. Impoundment of water in Cochiti Lake began in 1973. Archaeological surveys were made prior to filling of the lake. The filling of the lake inundated the Cochiti Diversion Dam which had previously been used for irrigation purposes, and which had been rehabilitated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation in 1958 as part of the Middle Rio Grande Project. The new dam replaced this functionality.
Construction of the dam was opposed by the Cochiti Pueblo Indians, who lost significant tracts of agricultural land as a result of the construction and subsequent pool filling. The Cochiti Pueblo Indians filed a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the inundation of their lands, winning the suit. In 2001, the Army Corps of Engineers made a public apology to the Cochiti Pueblo Indians.
Read more about this topic: Cochiti Dam
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“The history is always the same the product is always different and the history interests more than the product. More, that is, more. Yes. But if the product was not different the history which is the same would not be more interesting.”
—Gertrude Stein (1874–1946)
“Most events recorded in history are more remarkable than important, like eclipses of the sun and moon, by which all are attracted, but whose effects no one takes the trouble to calculate.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)