My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01660
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01660
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:05:01 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:00:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
10/14/1954
Description
Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
14
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 />454 <br /> <br />not see themselves supporting the passage of <br />a million dollar project. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Another matter quite thoroughly discussed was <br />the unsuccessful attempt on the part of the four <br />states involved and the Bureau to obtain favorable <br />publicity throughout America, necessary to edu- <br />cate those that are not informed about this type <br />of thing. A majority of the writers in_the <br />principal magazines and principal newspapers in <br />the country, took a positive stand against the <br />Bill. Probably one of the most vigorous attacks <br />was that on the Dinosaur National Park Project- <br />the Echo Park Dam. It was brought out that this <br />attack was general throughout the country and <br />carried on by conservation groups. Congressmen <br />and the Senators in other states not involved <br />in the Upper Colorado River Basin received <br />numerous telegrams and letters from their <br />constituents urging them to defeat the project on <br />account of the Echo Park Project alone. If they <br />went against the desire of their own constituents <br />they might lose many votes. If they voted in favor <br />of the bill, they would be helping people in other <br />states. Then there was the attack on the repay- <br />ment features. It was disclosed that certain <br />representatives felt that the foar Upper Basin <br />States were getting a free ride, so they were <br />opposed to it from that standpoint. I think it <br />was pretty well recognized that the presentation <br />of the case in the House was weak, and that the <br />presentation of the case in the Senate was strong, <br />and that was one of the reasons why the Senate <br />voted as it did. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Then there was the attack on the Bureau of <br />Reclamation itself. It was brought out that a <br />lot of new members in the House and in the <br />Senate are wholly unfamiliar with matters of <br />reclamation. That~ condition will have to be <br />corrected if that Bill is passed. It cannot be <br />done by one state. The opposition of California <br />cannot be minimized. I think that all of those <br />objections could be classed as follows: <br /> <br />1. The attack on Echo Park. <br /> <br />2. The attack on the economic features of <br />the project. The fact that the project <br />is too large for many people to understand. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.