Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,.68., <br /> <br />The Conejos people again appealed to the Colorado Senators for <br />advice. They recommended that another bill be filed with the hope <br />that, if it be vetoed, enough votes will be available to override the <br />veto. jeccordingly, last February, S. 2610 was intrcduced by Senator <br />ilillikin for himself and Senator Johnson. This bill does not remove <br />all limitations but rather restricts the project water which a land <br />owner may receive to that quantity reasonably needed to irrigate 480 <br />acres. The fate of such bill is in doubt. Its passage will ensure the <br />success of tre Conejos Project. Its defeat will mean that the Platoro <br />Dam at least for the time being will stand as a momument to a stubborn <br />washington bureaucracy. <br /> <br />Those interested in Colorado Viater development should not take the <br />smug attitude that the San Luis Valley must work out the land ~imitation <br />problem for itself. The same problem will arise on the Fryingpan-ilrkan- <br />sas, the participating projects under the Colorado River Storage Project, <br />the Blue-South Platte, and other projects. You cannot hide it. You can- <br />not escape from it. The idea of avoiding the problem in an authorization <br />bill is, in my opinion, fallaoious. It merely postpones the fatal day <br />and opens the door for the charge, Which has been most unfairly made in <br />connection with the Conejos, that the farmers have misled and deceived <br />the United States in seouring the construction of the project. <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />There is at tte moment one faint ray of hope. The legislative com- <br />mittee of the National Reclamation Association has recommended that the <br />hard and fast 160-acre limitation be removed and that in its stead pro- <br />vision be made for the determination of the maximum acreage which may be <br />held by one O1mer under each project by a board created to study and <br />pass thereon. I am informed that the legislation which the President's <br />National \,ater Resources Policy Committee has recommended contains a <br />similar provision. The difference between the two proposals, according <br />to my informant, is in the appointment of members to the Board. Under <br />the N]~ plan such appointments would be locally controlled. Under the <br />plan of the President 's Committee, the appointments will be controlled <br />by the oecretary of the Interior. This difference might conceivably <br />cause dif1'iculty in Congress. The legislative recommendations of the <br />President's committee have not as yet been given publio release. <br /> <br />In conclusi-on let me say that I believe that speculation in lands <br />to be served by a Federal reclamation project should be prevented. <br />Also I believe in the principle of family-operated farms. Cn these two <br />points I am in agreement with those who support the existing law. I <br />part company vlith them when they insist that the 160-acre limit must be <br />applied everywhere that the Bureau of Reclamation operates. A limit <br />Vlhich might be reasonable in the rich farm lands of Illinois, Iowa, and <br />Hissouri or in the prolific valleys of Arizona and California is entirely <br />unreasonable when applied to Colorado. For a fruit orchard the limit <br />may be too high. For a livestock operation it is too low. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />One parting comment. I see no way for COlorado to secure the vast <br />projects, which are essential to its full water development, without <br />federal financing. This means that we cannot overlook the conditions <br />which the United States imposes when it advances the money. The only <br />way to change those conditions is by aotion of the Congress. If you <br />