Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />message but can't remeber exactli~ 'but I think he suggested <br />that they should undertake nothing under that costing more <br />than $15,000 :in an attempt to arrl va at the purpo se of that bi'} :r:--" <br />I read carefully the debate in both the house and the Senate <br />and the explanation lW.de by the sponsors of the bill. There <br />it was held up as a measure whioh was primarily for the drouth <br />area in t.;,e middle west. Construotion of stook ponds, digging <br />wells, providing ror rehabilitation of the farmer. irrigation <br />only to the extent of farm gardens or at most flood irrigation <br />of a hay field during a period of high water. Well. the budget <br />has consistently held to that. That is they have aoceptoo <br />the President's word on it sO that the Depar'bnent of Agriculture <br />has been up against that and fUl'thermore have found that <br />complications involved in constructing these cooperatives or <br />CO!l1ll1uni ties a-t first are extremely difficult. Bear tha-t in <br />mind when you talk to the Depariment of Agrioul-ture that they <br />are mare or less helpless wi -th the thing. I will go back a <br />little farther. After the bill was passed, we suggested to <br />them in conference that they had authority to duplicate the <br />Bur.eau of Reclamation an a non-repayment basis and they <br />definitely said there was no such intent an that part. We <br />tried to arrive at a draft which would be mutually satisfactory. <br />The limit that was disoussed at that time was a maximum of <br />$50,000 and the irrigation of some specific area $1,000 or <br />$2,000 - - - some aoreage of that size. But no legislation came' <br />forth from them until the appropriation for the Department of <br />Agriculture when there was a limitation of $50,000 put into the <br />appropriatbn Act. Now, incidentally, that same controversy is <br />one of the primary reasOllS we never got any money for the <br />$50,000 projeot. Because the Bureau said-you fellows are both <br />in t.l:1e sa>re fix. We are going to have it used or at least <br />they said that to us and I assume they have to the DeparWlent <br />of Agriculture. They said it is perfectly all right to use <br />reI ief money far those things but you are not going to get a <br />direct appropriation and they hold to it oonsistently and we <br />yet have never been able -to get an appropriation through the <br />budget. Now that is a background whioh may be helpful to you <br />when YO'JiJ. meet with them on the 10th of' thi s month. Bear in <br />mind that they Should not go into anything exoept the samll <br />rehabili tation program and I think that is probably the reason <br />we have no-t seen much benefit fran the programs they prtlsented." <br /> <br />t: <br />;;;. <br /> <br /> <br />General discussi on followed ccncerning the Water Faei lities Aot. <br /> <br /> <br />There followed a discussion. of the checking of land classifioation <br />within the State of Colorado made by the Bureau of Reclamation. It was <br />explained by Mr. Patterson and Mr. Stone that these land classification reports' <br />would be discussed with local interests to determine whether or not, in the <br />opinion of looal interests, all land susceptible or irrigation and all irrigated <br />land had been included. It was explained that the Bureau of Reclamation had <br />promised to push check surveys if reasonable objections were made and the <br />necessity of checking of such surveys demonstratoo to the Bureau. <br /> <br />\ <br />~ <br />,. <br /> <br />37 <br /> <br />