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 />I <br /> <br />MR. PUGHE: <br />MR. RITER: <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: <br /> <br />MR. RITER: <br /> <br />~.~~~~: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />t~l <br /> <br />clarified as to how many reports <br />should be presented for authorization <br />by Congress." <br /> <br />"Mr. Riter." <br /> <br />"A reconnaissance report is a" preliminary <br />report to find out if it is worth <br />while to conduct further investigation. <br />Before a project is authorized, we <br />like to have a feasibility report <br />showing the costs, water supply, and <br />everything else so Congress can <br />appraise it. A status report is to <br />bring together all information <br />assembled. These reports must be <br />made before any money can be spent. <br />When involving irrigation, Congress <br />requires detailed soil surveys." <br /> <br />"I have here a report presented by Mr. <br />Larson, Region 4, the Curecanti Unit <br />Status Report, and which has not been <br />presented to Congress by the Commissioner. <br />Yet, I understand there are many <br />projects authorized with no more than <br />this. I am wondering, inasmuch as <br />this report was prepared, why it <br />was not presented for direct authorization." <br /> <br />"In the hearings held last year, I <br />think May 1955, Curecanti was included. <br />You will find we presented information <br />on every project in the original bill <br />including Curecanti. But that, <br />apparently, in the judgment of Congress, <br />was not enough. We were directed to go <br />back and get more detailed information." <br /> <br />"Inasmuch as the only major project <br />included in the bill for Colorado--major <br />in cost and quantity--is the Curecanti <br />Unit, I think the State of Colorado <br />should use every means at its disposal <br />to see that detailed reports are completed <br />and forwarded to Congress at the earliest <br />possible time. I think we should get <br />started right away on investigations for <br />participating projects and get them <br />completed. It may save two or three <br />years in the economy of our state. I <br />believe that everything should be done <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.