My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8038
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 11:04:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8038
Author
Upper Colorado River Commission.
Title
Fourteenth Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission.
USFW Year
1962.
USFW - Doc Type
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />"REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDED <br /> <br />reduction includes deletion of $358,400 programed for a visitor <br />center at the Wahweap site on the Glen Canyon reservoir and a <br />genernl reduction of 15 % on the balance of t'he budget estimate. <br />The \Vahweap site is a recreation center planned on the reservoir <br />some 15 miles from the dam site proper, Its principal purpose is <br />for camping and water recreation on the reservoir, It is the Com- <br />mittee's understanding that a visitor center in the form of an over- <br />look at the spectacular Glen Canyon Dam site is contemplated, <br />This obviously would be the prime attraction for visitations to the <br />project area and will provide an unique opportunity for a view of <br />the projeet, There appears to be no reason for the expenditure of <br />over a quarter of a million doIJars for another visitor center at an <br />area w,hich is pr~marily adapted to camping, boating and fishing <br />recreatIOn. At thIS particular location the Committee would con- <br />sider a scaled down version for a center to provide the essentials <br />necessary for the proper administration of the area and distribu- <br />tion of information concerning the camping and recreational oppor- <br />tunities. <br /> <br />"With respect to the 15% reduction, it must be pointed out <br />that the total program for recreation with respect to this project is <br />nonreimbursable and amounts to $32,569,000. The Committee is <br />cO,n,:,inced that this is an excessively high figure for providing the <br />mmImum basic facilities needed for recreation. It is also convinced <br />that the funds programmed for some of the smaller, less spectacular <br />features of the project will attract users from only the local com- <br />munities. In anticipation of some willingness on the part of the <br />states to participate to a larger extent in the development and man- <br />agement of such areas, the Committee intends to cut back the total <br />expenditures wherever possible. It is convinced that a hard scrutiny <br />of the plan as presented to date and more realistic appraisals of <br />actual needs would permit the National Park Service to present <br />a much more modest program, This will be expected in connection <br />with the 1964 budget presentation. <br /> <br />"Fish and Wildlife Facilities.-The Committee received testi- <br />mony to the effect that in the acquisition of wildlife refuge areas <br />on this project there has been contemplated the purchase and lease <br />of certain State lands, in some cases to be turned back to the <br />State for management as portions of wildlife areas, The Committee <br />sees no justification whatever for the purchase or lease of State <br />owned land, and directs that none of the funds appropriated for <br />the Colorado River Storage Project be used for this purpose. The <br />total cost of fish and wildlife facilities is estimated at approximately <br />$11,000,000. The Committee will also expect a more modest pre- <br />sentation in this program next year, <br /> <br />B. APPROPRIATIONS OF FUNDS BY THE <br />UNITED STATES CONGRESS <br /> <br />The appropriations of funds for reclamation and other public <br />works projects remained in a state of confusion until the closing <br />days of the 87th Congress. The delay and confusion seemed to <br />stem from the fact that 1962 was an election year, and there were <br />many other important problems in the administration's program that <br />needed resolution ahead of appropriations bills or concurrently <br />with them. <br />The House Committee on Appropriations did not submit its <br />Report No, 2223 containing recommendations of funds to be ap- <br />propriated for the Colorado River Storage Project to the Congress <br />until August 14, 1962, As the following Table "A" will show, the <br />House Committee modified the President's budget requests in sev- <br />eral respects. The Committee disallowed the $550,000 for advance <br />planning of the San Juan-Chama Participating Project because <br />it said that it was impossible to hold hearings and go into the merits <br />of the project after the budget estimate was received, and it did <br />n()tdeem it appropriate to recommend beginning advance planning <br />on a project of the magnitude of San Juan-Chama without a care- <br />ful examination of its economics and its merits during regular hear- <br />ings. The House Committee also recommended a reduction in the <br />amount of money in the budget request to be appropriated for rec- <br />reational facilities at the Glen Canyon Dam, The Committee ex- <br />plained its actions regarding the changes from the President's budget <br />req uest as follows: <br /> <br />"San Juan-Chama Project, Colomdo and New Mexico. - An <br />estimate of $550,000 for advanced planning on the San Juan-Chama <br />feature of the Colorado River Storage Project came to the Congress <br />in the form of a budget amendment some time after the Committee <br />had completed its hearings. The funds requested have been dis- <br />allowed without prejudice to the project. It was impossible to hold <br />hearings and to go into the merits of the project since the estimate <br />was received so late. It seems inappropriate to recommend begin- <br />ning advanced planning on a project with a total cost of $84,500,000 <br />without a careful examination of its economics and its merits in <br />the regular hearing process. <br />"Recreation Facilities.-An appropriation of $2,322,000 is rec- <br />ommended for the recreation facilities on this project. This is a <br />reduction of $768,000 in the budget estimate of $3,090,000, The <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.