Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.0' <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />16. <br /> <br />"Fot the..f'oregoing reasons, I am directing the Secretary of the <br />Interior ~o take the following steps--To complete his study of this <br />project amd submit a final report; to defer iititiation of construction <br />of any of It he recreational. facilities pending. determination of a national <br />policy onlrecreation at water resources deve~opment projects; to work.out <br />with the Ilepartment of the Army a sound f100~' control plan and cost <br />a1locatio~s; to consult with the Department .~..1 Agriculture on the <br />abili ty o~ the water users to repay the cost~, of the irrigation <br />features; jto make such other adjustments in'il,he plans, estimates, <br />cost al10dations and repayment obligations a~ may be required on the . <br />basis of tlhe above and the data which willb~come available when de- <br />tailed SUx1veys, engineering designs and refi.ned estimates are completed; <br />and to de!llr final negotiations on any repayment contracts with the <br />water user~ until definite repayment amounts and conditions are <br />settled." ; <br /> <br />He S~YSI <br />, <br />, <br />"I dO not intend to subm:l.t any requests for construction approp- <br />riations u~til the above preparation has been accomplished and it is <br />known as s1).relyas possible that is going to be done..." and so forth. <br />, <br />In oiher words, those are the conditions that he :l.mposed on the Weber <br />Project in Utahjwhen he approved it, which are almost the same as the reasons given <br />in. th.e veto m.e~a~e on th.e Vermejo pro.ject. In factf the one thing that stuck out <br />more than anyt ng else in my mind, in considering the veto of the VermejoProject, <br />was the statlllllls ts that the President made or was made to make by his a.dvisers who <br />handed him thes4 documents. In part he said: <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />"The~e estimates of the ability of the water users to repay the <br />costs allo ted to irrigation were not officially reviewed by the <br />Department f Agriculture in the usual manner before the Congress took <br />action on ~ is bill." <br /> <br />I thi~ we can demonstrate that is not true. In other words, the Presi- <br />dent ,was misled,! because the Department of Agriculture had every opportunity to <br />review this jUS~ like they have many other reclamation projects that have been <br />passed. I want fO read one other thing in the veto message: <br /> <br />. "Timel has not permitted such review to be made within the periOd <br />allowed for! Presidential action on enrolled bills. Therefore, I am <br />unable to r~port to the Congress whether the conclusions reached by the <br />Bureau of R~clamation with regard to the agricultural and economio <br />feasibilitYlof the proposed plan are concurred in by the Depart~ent <br />of Agricult1i.re." <br /> <br />MR. W~LACE: That is the Vermejo Project? <br /> <br />MR, ~LSON: Yes. In other words, th~ president is saying in effect, <br />that although th1 Interior Department--which is the Department charged qylaw and <br />statute with tha~ responsibility, has determined the feasibility of the project, and <br />you have convinc~d the Congressional Committees and the whole Congress, still he <br />does not know if ~he Department of Agricu+ture has determined the economic feasibil- <br />ity of the proje~t. <br /> <br />~ ~ <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />I <br />d <br /> <br />,;0 <br />. _$ <br /> <br />. ;;:' <br /> <br />l...;;. <br />";'.' II <br />