My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01178
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01178
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:58:49 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:51:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/4/1955
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.
/
32
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 />510 <br /> <br />adopted. I told them, among other things, that such <br />a plan, I am sure, would receive good support from the <br />Congress because of its fairness and because it would <br />indicate to Congressmen who are skeptical that the <br />development of the Upper Colorado River was not going <br />to be such a tremendous burden upon the Treasury of <br />the United States as some.of them feared. If the <br />profits from the power were used for these purposes <br />I know enough about Congress to know that Congress <br />would jump at that kind of proposal. It was urged in <br />opposition that it would be .an awkward way to handle <br />it. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"1 brought forth argument which I think 'is <br />absolutely sound--and it was not contested by Mr. Clyde <br />and the New Mexico people.--that we had no assurance <br />whatsoever in the bill before Congress that ~he money <br />would be used in the Colorado Basin at all. It would <br />go into the general fund for reclamation and it might <br />be used in other places than in the development of the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin. My plan dedicated that <br />money singly and totally to the development of the <br />waters that had been given to each state in the <br />Colorado River Basin. I.am talking about water that is <br />over the dam now because that was rejected, and the <br />eighteen projects were accepted.' <br /> <br />"1 have a division of the funds which will be <br />used for participating projects in the Upper Colorado <br />River which was submitted to the Commission meeting by <br />Mr. Jacobson; showing just how the amount of money <br />would be used for the participating projects under the <br />plan which was before the'Congress last-year and is <br />before the Congress at the present time. It indicated, <br />as I recall the figures, that Colorado would receive <br />something like 24 million dollars and Wyoming would <br />receive something about the same amount and Utah, as I <br />recall it, about 230 million--it was over 200 million-- <br />and New Mexico would receive a much smaller amount. - <br />However, New Mexico's tabulation, as given by <br />Mr. Jacobson, did not include all of the projects which <br />are in the bill. I think it was purely an oversight <br />but New Mexico, under the present bill, gets a very' <br />small part, according to Mr. Jacobson, of the.funds. <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.