My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01799
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01799
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:07:09 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:02:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/8/1961
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.
/
104
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 />LVV.L <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />very distinct difference between the author- <br />ization in an Act and the appropriations for <br />moneys to construct matters that had been <br />authorized. I think Mr. Sparks is confusing <br />you, if I may say that, by saying that the Bill <br />specifically directs that the Secretary of the <br />Interior build these transmission lines, there- <br />fore there is no problem today because the Act <br />directs that the Secretary build these lines. <br />This is not the case. Actually the Act author- <br />izes the Secretary to construct the transmission <br />lines. There is no question about that. But <br />there has always been a difference in Congress <br />between the authorization for a project and <br />the appropriations for the funds to undertake <br />construction of those projects. The matter <br />before Congress today is, should Congress <br />appropriate money now for the government to <br />build these transmission systems or is there <br />an alternative? And so the fact that the Act <br />authorizes the Secretary to build the trans- <br />mission system does not bind the Appropriations <br />Committee to make appropriations. Certainly <br />the fact that the Colorado River Storage Proj- <br />ect Act where the Secretary is authorized to <br />construct that project, does not bind the <br />Appropriations Committee to make appropriations <br />for that project. Otherwise why would we all <br />go gack and work so hard for the appropriations <br />that we all work so hard for, for the continua- <br />tion of that project? There is a very distinct <br />difference between the authorization and the <br />appropriations, and at issue today is, should <br />Congress appropriate funds for the construction <br />of an all-federal system or is there an alter- <br />native way where it can be done better and <br />still in the best interests of the project? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I would also like to say this. That I do <br />not know what the purpose of this meeting of <br />the Board is today except perhaps to find out <br />the facts. I would like this Board to know <br />that I am available; Mr. Patterson is avail- <br />able; to answer any questions that this Board <br />may have as to any participation that our com- <br />pany may have had in this matter. Actually we <br />are at a critical point in this thing. The <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.