Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I would like to read briefly from Public <br />Law 485, which states in Section 5: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />'There is hereby authorized a separate <br />fund in the Treasury of the United States to <br />be known as the Upper Colorado River Basin <br />Fund - - - which shall remain available until <br />expended, as hereafter provided, for carrying <br />out provisions of this Act - - - <br /> <br />Then it states: <br /> <br />'All revenues collected in connection with <br />the operation of the Colorado River storage <br />project and participating projects shall be <br />credited to the Basin Fund, and shall be <br />available, without further appropriation, for <br />the following purposes - - - <br /> <br />And no where in those purposes is any author- <br />ity given to the Secretary of the Interior to <br />contribute those funds to the Lower Basin <br />states. <br /> <br />We have indicated this position to the <br />Bureau of Reclamation. We are perfectly <br />agreeable to working out any method to assist <br />the Lower Basin in either the amortization of <br />Hoover Dam or to renew their power contracts <br />which expire in 1987. In any method we are <br />willing to assist them so long as there is no <br />taking of the funds of the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />We understand there is a great drive to <br />bring this matter to culmination within the <br />next two months, and there is some necessity <br />for that since it is anticipated that the <br />lower gates on Glen Canyon will close perhaps <br />in 1962. But we, in the final analysis, can <br />never agree to any proposition which jeopard- <br />izes our upstream development. That's the <br />situation that now exists. Mr. Goslin is <br />here from the Upper Colorado River Commission <br />who, along with his staff, has been working <br />on this problem for several years. There is <br />a feeling on the part of the State of New <br />Mexico that we should agree to these criteria. <br />