Laserfiche WebLink
<br />," <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />CHAI~ STONE: Is there a second to that motion? <br /> <br />MR. hOLLINS: I will second it. <br /> <br />CHAI~N STONE: Is there any further discussion? Ready for the <br />que!ltion1 (Qu~stion is called for. Thereupon a vote is taken and Mr. Carson's <br />motion carries 1 unanimously. ) The motion is unanimously carried and declared <br />adopted. " . <br /> <br />, <br />Now it would seem to me it would be well to have on this collllilittee <br />. Arizona, NewM+xico and Utah represented. They have come in more direct contil-ct <br />with this situ~tionrecently. And unless there is some better suggestion, I would <br />appoint Mr. ca~son, Mr. Wilson, and General Vernon. . <br />! <br />. MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up any additional time-- <br />it is getting ~ate--but there are two or three things I would like to mention <br />bearing out wh4t has been said and what the Chairman has. said on the veto of the <br />Vermejo, New M~xico Project, and the Presidential approval of the Weber Project in <br />Utah, <br />i <br />Now ~ do think if you read the President's message, both the one vetoing <br />the New Mexico ~roject and the one approving the Weber Project, you will agree that <br />it does pose a/question that is very important to the entire West. It is not be- <br />cause it is a New Mexico Project but I believe that by studying his messages and <br />trying to get $e real facts on exactly what happened leading up to the preparation <br />of those messa~es, we might be able to put our finger on where the trouble lies. <br />1 <br />For ~he benefit of. some of you here who may not know, the Vermejo Projeot <br />is a small rec~kmation project in New Mexico for rehabilitation of about 7,000 <br />acres of land. I It is an old project that has been operated until now by a private <br />quasi public i1' igation. district; and a.s can.be demonstrated,. seeking the auth..ori- <br />zation for reha i1itation of that project, every step was taken that is required <br />to be taken by he Reclamation Laws and the reclamation procedure. And in spite <br />of that, the Pr~sident vetoed it and assigned as reasons that he was vetoing it <br />until certain nJ>nreimbursab1e features that were mentioned in the bill were estab- <br />lished by basicilaw. <br />, <br />I <br />Now Ildon1t want to go into detail on that except to say that what im- <br />pressed me was ~hat the President's veto message was prepared by someone not <br />friendly to rec~amation in the West as we conceive it. It 11"88 bl:>pught in 'Do htn by <br />somebody, and t~e information r have is that he was furnished with a veto. message <br />for the VermejolProject and the Weber Project at perhaps about the same time; and <br />when he vetoed the Vermejo Project, I think the Utah Congressional delegation got <br />word of it someiway, and they rushed over and had a talk with the President per- <br />sonal1y--so I ~ informed. The result was that he 'approved the Weber Project in <br />Utah, which was Ivery simUar, but even as approved, it seems to m3, the Ut&bproj- <br />ect is in worselfix than the one in New Mexico. <br />) <br />Now Nst as a matter of interest-I don't want to take up too m1,1cl1 time,..,.. <br />I happen to hav4 copy of the message approving the Weber Project, and r will read <br />an extract from!it. It said: " <br /> <br /><, <br /> <br />~" i: 4. 4__L <br /> <br />