Laserfiche WebLink
ill <br />mission to California, made in 19,95. Iva] Goslin and our friend, Sid <br />McFarland, were with us. At Modesto, California, we met in a motel room <br />and worked over the possible formula for the division of the net revenues <br />from the Basin Fund. We placed our suggestion before Ed Johnson and the <br />other governors of the other states, and they said, "It won't fly." And, <br />I said to my governor, "If it doesn't fly, there'll be no Upper Colorado <br />River Storage Project this year." This matter was taken to Santa Fe, and <br />here came the cooperation again from the members of the Governors, the <br />Commissioners and the members of the States who were involved in the <br />development of the Colorado River, and that formula was accepted. And, <br />it's one of the most exceptional and valuable provisions of a water <br />resource development program such as we have. <br />I think it's well that each State has heretofore, and I hope they <br />continue to have from now on, its own ambitions as far as projects in <br />their States are concerned. I am glad to know that New Mexico has had <br />projects to take care of every acre -foot of water to which it's entitled. <br />They might get a little advantage out of Hammond, but that's the only <br />one that's left for them. I'm glad to know that Utah is getting in shape <br />for the Central Utah Project. I hope that I may be able to say that <br />Colorado can get its five projects that were authorized as a part of <br />the Colorado River Storage and Colorado River Basin Acts. May I say <br />this, Wyoming is the one that is least developed at the present tine. <br />And, I think it is up to us as we fight the battles in the future to <br />see that the equities are pretty well maintained, and that these States, <br />including Wyoming, are permitted to use the water to which they are <br />entitled. <br />These projects have always been considered by those of us who were <br />working on the legislative front as integrated individual units. Isn't <br />that right, Wallace? <br />SENATOR BENNETT: Absolutely. <br />CONGRESSMAN ASPINALL: When you consider the three power operations. <br />Glen Canyon -- it was and is an individual project; you consider Flaming <br />Gorge -- it was and is an individual projects when you consider Curecanti, <br />you've got to consider all three of those projects integrated as a unit <br />to make the Curecanti a satisfactory project -- ever conforming to the <br />benefit cost -ratio formula of yesterday, We came together as an integrated <br />project for the resolvement of the Tipper Colorado River Basin Fund. <br />When we authorized the participating projects, we considered them <br />on an individual basis, but they were a single unit operation for each <br />of the various States and it must be Considered that way because there <br />are some projects, in my opinion, that, even ender the old rules that <br />we followed, would have had a hard time qualifying if taken individually <br />to come in line with any kind of benefit -cost ratio acceptable by Congress <br />at that time. <br />That's <br />what it <br />means to <br />have cooperation -- common <br />goals, <br />people <br />willing to <br />sacrifice <br />and work <br />together, compromisers, and <br />a Congress <br />of <br />6 <br />