Laserfiche WebLink
<br />IS3 <br /> <br />I would like to comment a little bit regarding H. R. 2220 <br />citing one provision of the Bill which reads in part: <br /> <br />....(2) Where a river basin program approved or authorized <br />by law includes the construction, by the Secretary of the <br />Interior or any of his subordinates, of a number of <br />integral physical units, each'of which can be used in- <br />dependently for irrigation or reclamation even though planned <br />for ultimate use in conjunction with other units, and a <br />specific amount of money is authorized by law to be ap- <br />propriated for the partial accomplishment of the.program <br />but no limit has been fixed by law on the'amount'which may <br />be appropriated to accomplish the entire program, each such <br />integral unit shall be considered a separate reclamation <br />project...... . <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Now I don't believe it was the intention of the author <br />of this Bill, or that it is the aim of H. R. 2220 to accomplish <br />what I am about to describe, but in my judgment there is a very <br />serious danger that this provision could be construed as <br />preventing financial assistance from the one unit towa~d.paying <br />the oosts of another unit. Take the Colorado River Storage <br />Project as an illustration, I think it is quite possible that <br />we might be told we could not use surplus power resources toward <br />reducing the cost of an irrigation unit; there is serious danger <br />under this language that we could not take the power units of <br />the Colorado River Storage Project and figure'a schedule or <br />bring about a blanket schedule covering all of them, and of course <br />that is the sensible way to try to arrive at a suitable average <br />rate for power producing on Colorado River Storage Project. <br />Those provisions of the Bill really have nothing to do with <br />what the title of the bill is for -The title reads: <br /> <br />"A Bill to provide for closer supervision of the costs of <br />constructing irrigation and reclamation projects, and <br />projects in the Territories and possessions of the United <br />States." <br /> <br />I call your attention to the fact that the reference in <br />Section4 is somewhat broader than Section 5, in limiting to I <br />those cases when officers or employees would have notice given . ~ <br />to them by their superiors under the provisions of other <br />portions of this Bill because it requires that the contract <br />be not authorized by law and does not have an appropriation <br />adequate to its fulfilment. If I were a contract officer of <br />the U. S. I would hesitate to award any kind of a contract <br />for a reclamation project. <br />