BOARD00600

• Board Meeting Date: 3/19/1956
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

3"&&
b3 ~

MR. MOSES:

MR. PETERSON:

MR. CRAWFORD:

MR. PETERSON:

MR. MILLER:

MR. FINLINSON:

MR. RITER:

"As I recall, when the Board established
priority On participating projects, we
did not include Curecanti because we
considered it as a separate type of
project. I, personally, would like to
hear from the representative of that
area, as they may not agree that
Curecanti is of sufficient importance.
That it should be given a high
priority,. maybe top pr~ority."

''We are speaking now of projects in
the area which I reside. We have had
several meetings of the general'
public in that area, and those interested
in water development. Last Saturday
night we had one in Delta, I will
say that the people are interested
in Curecanti, but participating
projects are closer to home and
are the ones that they depend on
for their livelihood; more than
Curecanti. Projects like Paonia~
Fruitland Mesa, and Bostwick Park
are those which should be completed
as quickly as possible. If it comes to
a point of decision between two, I
would vote in favor of participating
projects Over Curecanti."

I

"Mr. Chairman, it seems to me Curecanti
is entirely in a different classification.
We must not overlook the chance to get
authorization for participating projects.
Our funds won't cover them all."

'7ou are right. There should be'three
categories; project storage, irrigation
projects, and another category for
further priority investigations.' We
should consider three different
categories." .

"I am back to the same point. If,
Mr. Finlinson can answer the question,
is Curecanti authorized?"

I

"We will be glad to interpret the bill
when we see it."

"I know the House Committee report
mentioned Curecanti as being conditionally
authorized. I also know in the House
Committee report 1087, when it is
tabulated the fund, $760,000,000, it
did not show any money for Curecanti.