My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00600
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00600
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:52:18 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:41:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/19/1956
Description
Minutes
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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 />LS80 <br /> <br />Dolores Project. $130,000 has been set up for fiscal 1957. <br /> <br />San Miquel. A status report on this project has been <br />made. Because of the work load caused by other project <br />studies, the Bureau has not been able to do any further <br />work on this project. <br /> <br />Curecanti. Further study will depend on appropriations <br />for advance planning, and the amount appropriated would <br />also include Glen Canyon and Flaming Gorge. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Savery-Pot Hook. The State of Wyoming has tentative <br />plans either for State construction of the Savery unit <br />or for the use of her share of Little Snake water in <br />another water shed. Further- progress on this project <br />is dependent upon crystallization of these plans. <br /> <br />Fruitqrowers Extension. This report has gone to the <br />Washington offices. The extent of local support should be <br />determined before this can be finally processed for <br />submission to Congress. <br /> <br />Ohio Creek. There are two large ranches in this area <br />under this proposed project. The feeling of the owners <br />of these ranches regarding the project, in view of land <br />limitation policy, has not been determined." <br /> <br />MR. CRAWFORD: <br /> <br />'~ou should have in mind the prOV1Slons <br />of the bill which passed Congress <br />covering appropriations for these <br />projects. The question involved here, <br />is a matter of advancing in several <br />cases, the actual date of completion <br />of project reports, one to three <br />or four years. No appropriation <br />for construction will be made for <br />these projects until such time <br />as there are reports which show <br />that the projects measure up to <br />requirement s." <br /> <br />MR. PUGHE: <br />MR. CRAWFORD: <br /> <br />"This is the bill?" <br /> <br />"As it was a week ago. It will not be <br />changed. " <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. PUGHE: <br /> <br />"That is the Aspinall Bill. Any further <br />comments on the report by the Dean?" <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit confused <br />as to the required reports necessary for <br />authorization. I hear many times <br />that some projects require reconnaissance <br />reports and detailed studies for <br />authorization and other times many <br />projects are authorized on merely status <br />reports. I would like to have this <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.