My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01119
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01119
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:58:22 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:50:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/11/1965
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.
/
46
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 />the Rio Grande compact meeting. I used to <br />attend those meetings, but after several meet- <br />ings at which New Mexico and Texas accosted us <br />as to why certain water was not delivered, all <br />I could do was to try to look innocent and <br />change the subject. So I quit going because <br />Mr. ~fuitten, Mr. Geissinger, Mr. Gildersleeve, <br />and Mr. Moses can look more innocent than I <br />can: <br /> <br />I would like to briefly answer Mr. McCand- <br />less and Mr. Goodwin who raised some questions <br />about the Savery-pot Hook and Fruitland Mesa <br />Projects in connection with land acreage limita- <br />tion. This matter, as you know, was quite <br />thoroughly discussed before the Congressional <br />committees. There was no reluctance on the part <br />of the Congress to actually give us special <br />legislation which would increase the acreage. <br />And this it did. Congress gave the Secretary <br />of the Interior the authority to increase the <br />acreage to an economic farm unit. The only <br />question that the Congress wants to know now is <br />what the Bureau considers to be an economic farm <br />unit. If that's 300 acres the Congress will go <br />along with it, or whatever it is. But that's <br />the question they have directed to the Bureau - <br />what is considered to be an economic farm unit? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />It was reported, in a Washington dispatch <br />on the Savery-pot Hook and Fruitland Mesa, that <br />it was disappointing because no construction <br />funds were requested for these two projects. <br />This is not exactly correct. It was not antici- <br />pated that any construction funds as such would <br />be appropriated this year. It will take at least <br />a year or two years of advance planning before" <br />construction can start. So no amount of money, I <br />don't believe, could get the projects under <br />construction during the coming fiscal year. <br />Bostwick Park is a much simpler project to con- <br />struct and for that reason it can be placed under <br />early construction, perhaps by the end of the <br />fiscal year. The money which was recommended in <br />the president's budget was that amount of money <br />which was already programed as a start on these <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.