My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00822
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00822
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:54:24 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:44:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
4/27/1953
Description
Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
68
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 />1M <br /> <br />paralyzing the functions of one worthy Bureau, or whether <br />you change policies by making the proper approaches to the <br />legislative committees of the Congress, and persuade those <br />committees to attack the legislation, which itself is the <br />source of policy, or should be. <br /> <br />There is another Bill in Washington which is causing <br />some great concern - it is HR 2220, introduced by Saylor of <br />Pennsylvania. I don't question motives of the sponsors, or <br />the necessity for reduction of expenditures. I think most <br />of those motives are worthy, but I ask you to study HR 2220, <br />and to see just how it impinges on the program in 17 western <br />states.' One item in HR 2220, for instance, would call each <br />integral unit of a reclamation unit a project in itself. The <br />question arises whether we could pass financial help from <br />one unit to another." This presents a question in my mind. <br />The purpose of HR 2220 sounds good, according to its title: "To <br />provide for closer supervision of the costs of constructing <br />irrigation and reclamation projects, and projects in the <br />Territories and possessions of the United States." and I am <br />sure the sincere purpose of its sponsor is to provide for <br />better control of the over-run of construction expenditures <br />of reclamation projects. My own reaction, after studying <br />HR 2220 is that the Bill attempts to substitute red tape for <br />competence and integrity in office, and I suggest that you <br />study HR 2220 with the Appropriate Committees of the Congress. <br />I have asked this Board for help before; I want to ask again. <br />We need help before the Bureau of the Budget; we need all <br />the help you can give us at the White House. I am not sectional <br />neither is the Upper Colorado River Commission. We have always <br />thought in terms of the whole west and of all the states in the <br />west. I want to say to you that whenver I have been in <br />Washington and talked about the Colorado River Storage Project <br />I have always taken occasion to mention the Frying Pan-Arkansas <br />Project, and I have poided out to high officials in the <br />Bureau of Reclamation and to the Assistant Secretary of the <br />interior in charge of water resources development that the <br />Frying Pan-Arkansas project is badly needed. I appeal to this <br />Board therefore to give vigorous support to the Frying Pan- <br />Arkansas project just as it will to the Colorado River Storage <br />Proj ect. <br /> <br />The last item, Mr. Chairman, that I want to cover this <br />morning is the matter of fhe possibility of hearings before <br />the legislative committees on the Colorado River Storage Project, <br />and participating projects. I cannot report positively, because <br />I was not ,able to get such evidence as would enable me <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.