Laserfiche WebLink
<br />() ., '.) 'J <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />with 69,000 acre-feet; you know you want 0 bigger amount than <br /> <br /> <br />that>> And so they centered their opposition Gomewhot on the <br /> <br /> <br />fact that we wbren't getting as mu~h water as we would hove <br /> <br /> <br />liked tv obtained. But we had to take what we could get. <br /> <br /> <br />It was 0 matter of compromise with the western slope in <br /> <br /> <br />working this aut, <br /> <br />Miss Burris: The legislative histbry on this goes bock to in <br />the 1940's. Is that CorrEict? <br /> <br />Mr. Chenoweth: Thot is correct. I cannot remember the exact <br />year thot I first introduced the Fryingpon-Arkansas Project <br />in Congress. I think it was in the late 40's probably, however, <br />it did not get much momentum untiL the ecrly 50's. I recall <br />that I was defeated for election in 1948 and I was out for, out <br />of Congress during 1949 and 50. When I came bock in '51 the <br />work seemed to pick up, there wes greater interest, the project <br />moved along ond we finolly got 0 ~ate on the floor of the <br />Howse in 1~54 on the rule. unfortunately, we did not yet the <br />rule adopted which was necessary to consider the bill <br />There war. strong oppositl.on to the project; not only in Colo- <br />rado. The western slope opposed ~t vigorovsly; at that time <br />Mr. Aspinall who represented the western slope in Congress <br />lived in Grand Junction, Polisode, appeared personally in the <br />House Rules Committee in opposition to the Fryingpon-Arkansos <br />Project indicating that they wonted the Uppe" Colorado River <br />Storage Project possed first and ~hey finally got that, <br />California was always bitterly opposed to the project. becc.)se <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />