Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/1 <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />NR. PETERSON: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. NELSON: <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: <br /> <br />...1001 <br /> <br />this priority schedule investigations on the <br />upper San Juan. The priority that I would <br />ask for this would be position #6 as it is now <br />listed, but I would also ask that reconnais- <br />sance be considered for 1965. I think it is <br />important that some priority be given to each <br />project as it is developed and this is the <br />feeling of the Southwestern District in regard <br />to our problems." <br /> <br />II Nr 6 Peterson 6 II <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman, in connection with the <br />statement just made, I think we must keep in <br />mind in setting up these priorities that the <br />priority was established by Congress in Public <br />Law 485 for investigations. I feel that we <br />pretty nearly have to follow out that priority <br />before we include anything else. It seems <br />possible that we could include something else <br />after those projects mentioned in 485 have <br />been taken care of but we can't put them <br />ahead of any projects that were given a <br />priority in Public Law 485." <br /> <br />IIMr. Nelson.1I <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Kroeger <br />what he would call this upper San Juan proj- <br />ect?'l <br /> <br />"I think the Upper San Juan Project would <br />be an appropriate name for this. This in- <br />cludes both the piedra and the San Juan Rivers. <br />I would also like to ask Mr. Peterson if all <br />the projects being considered this morning <br />were included in this 485? It was my under- <br />standing that some of them might not have <br />been." <br /> <br />"I don't have the bill before me so I <br />can't tell you for sure but it seems to me <br />that all of these projects that are listed on <br />this priority were included. I may be in <br />error in that." <br />