My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01706
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:06:07 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:01:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
8/2/1961
Description
Table of Contents, Agenda and 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.
/
123
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 />"''t.:>O <br /> <br />consideration.if the project were authorized. <br />Therefore, the committee expects the proposal <br />by the private power companies for cooperatio~ <br />in the development to be carefully considered <br />by the Department of Interior and the electric <br />power and energy of the project to be marketed, <br />so far as possible, through the facilities of' <br />the electric utilities operating in the area, <br />provided, of course, that the power prefer- <br />ence laws are complied with and project repay- <br />ment and consumer power rates are not adversely <br />affected. ' <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The point that I want to make here is that we <br />did not sneak into the back door. As a matter of <br />fact, my own personal opinion is, one of the <br />l:'easons the Colorado River storage Project was <br />authorized in the first place was because it was <br />not a public versus private power controversy. <br />It had the entire endorsement of all the inter- <br />ests in this area and it was our support that <br />lent some help to the passage of Public Law 485 <br />when the matter was before the Congress in 1956. <br />What is the problem today then? The problem <br />today is that the Bureau has determined that it <br />wants to build an all-federal transmission system <br />to market the power from this project and this is <br />what has caused the controversy. Up until that <br />time the proposals of the companies were consis- <br />tent with the historical policy of Congress. <br />I'm not only speaking of the COlorado River Stor- <br />age project. I call your attention to the South-. <br />west Power Administration; to the Southeast Power <br />Administration; to the Pacific Northwest. Name <br />any area in the United States outside of TVA, in <br />every single one of those areas where marketing <br />of federal power is concerned, there is a com- <br />bination system between the government and exist- <br />ing utilities in the area. TVA is the only area <br />in the United States where there is an all-federal <br />system to market the power from the project. ' <br /> <br />So the thing that. is causing the concern in <br />Congress today is that the Bureau is coming be- <br />fore Congress and is saying that it recommends <br />that an all-federal system be built in this case. <br />And this is what is causing concern in Congress. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />,.;~. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.