Laserfiche WebLink
<br />is available. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: There is a matter, Mr. Crandall, that needs clearing up. <br />I found out about this two days ago from conversations with. the four. <br />conservancy districts involved, that all four projects have been shoved <br />back a year. Now, the question is -- did this delay develop from your <br />office, or have you received instructions from the Commissioner of <br />Reclamation which forced you to make this delay? <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: Absolutely none. As a matter of fact, the Commissioner <br />of Reclamation is pressing with every capability that he has to achieve <br />performance. Our total regional performance, because of all of the <br />complications here and elsewhere, is about 70 percent of the funds <br />available to us, and it's about 20 percent lower than we've ever <br />experienced. There has been absolutely no direction, implied or direct. <br />The delays are due to these complexities that l've explained. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I think, Mr. Crandall, knowing you, that we can accept that <br />explanation. The reason I asked the question is that because at least <br />one of our conservancy districts was given to understand recently when <br />the delay was explained that it was occasioned by factors originating <br />out of the Commissioner's Office. Apparently your staff member made a <br />mistake. <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: Perhaps I can relate. We have, in other programs, pro- <br />ceeded without having the definite plan report document finalized. <br />We've sent the information forward in a preliminary form. There have <br />been some experiences where information needed changing, and it had a. <br />ripple effect through a lot of other activities. So the Commissioner's <br />staff has indicated that they want to have final supported documentation <br />before they will make the key decisions on start of the construction.. <br />This is not a departure. This has been our historic way of operating, <br />and it is sensible. But it does add to the time requirements. Only <br />recently they did, in one case, after they'd gotten all the bugs worked <br />out, went ahead without having the final document. So, they're still. <br />flexible. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br />MR. SHERMAN: I think the concern that this entire board shares, Dave, <br />is that we in no way, shape or form jeopardize the construction starts. <br />These starts are critical. Any kind of delay might undermine that con- <br />struction start and we might lose it in the future. When I look at <br />these time schedules, I think I understand how Congress and the Admin- <br />istration will proceed in the next year. Sometime in early 1977, <br />perhaps March or April, Congress will begin to consider the budget for <br />fiscal year '78. lf there is not a demonstration to those congressional <br />committees and the Administration that we have taken advantage of the <br />construction start they gave to us the previous year, we could, in fact, <br />risk losing the construction start which was earlier ~iven to us, and <br />the continuation of construction funds. I think that s why, at least <br />from my standpoint, getting a construction start before, say, March or <br />April of 1977 is critical on virtually all of these projects. And l, <br />for one, would like to see a commitment from the Bureau that there will <br />be construction starts on all of these projects before March or April of <br /> <br />-21- <br />