Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~--" <br /> <br />66',";- <br />, <br /> <br />of Utah. He eJo.-plained that it was the view of the Upper Colorado River <br />Commission that any legislation to authorize the Colorado River storage <br />Project should be jointly sponsored in the Congress by all of the Senators <br />and Congressmen from the four Upper Division States of the Colorado River, <br />and the absence of a release of the report on the project by the SccretaIj' <br />of the Interior, lack of consideration by the Bureau of the Budget, and I <br />other factors had prevented any agreement by the Congressional delegations <br />fro~ the four States to introduce the bill prior to this time. The State <br />of Utah, particularly various groups and water organizations in the eastern <br />part of that State, had expressed concern over the delay of the Secretary <br />of the.Interior in releasing the project report and had urged the Upper <br />Colorado River Commission to consider further measures to obtain such re- <br />lease. The Upper Colorado River Commission, he said, would meet on Uay 9 <br />to further consider the matter. The Director stated that one of the factors <br />which seemed to be causing delay in release of the report by the Secretary <br />of the Interior was an ~dverse report of the Chief of the Corps of Army <br />Engineers on the project. He said that efforts had been, and were being, <br />made to secure a modification of this adverse report by the Army Engineers, <br />but that efforts in that direction had failed and the chances of such <br />modification are not good. The Director expressed the view that Colorado <br />and the other three Upper Division States should act in complete accord <br />'in the effort to sec~re project authorization. He believed that the best <br />success could only be obtained by such united action. <br /> <br />The Director reported that the report on the proposed Fryingpan- <br />Arkansas Project had been released b.r the Secretary of the Interior to <br />the Bureau of the Budget and the bill had been introduced in both the <br />House and the Senate to authorize this project. The Budget Bureau has <br />not subr.li.tted the report to the Fresident and Congress. :;fforts were <br />being made, he said, to arrange for hearings on the project by the Senate <br />Interior and Insular Affairs Committee during the present session of Congress. <br /> <br />Procedure to obtain authorization of the Colorado River Storage Pro- <br />ject Tras then disc~_wsed by the Board. It Y1D.S sug~es~cd b:r Judge Dan H. <br />Hughes that the Board should go on record as requesting that construction <br />of storace on tho Gunnison ~ver should be Given first priority. The <br />Director pointed out that the Colorado ''-later Conservation Board, in the <br />official comments of the State of Colorado to the Secretal"J'of the Interior, <br />and Colorado's member of the Upper Colorado River Commission had agreed <br />with the other three States on the storage features of the Colorado River <br />Storage Project which should constitute the units for initial authorization. <br />To take the action suggested by Judge Hughes would.mean a reversal of the <br />position which Colorado had heretofore taten. The Director said that <br />it is not conceivable that the other States ,"ould co~cede to giving I <br />storage on the Gunnison River a priority of construction over all other <br />storage units; that the storage units which are provided under the Colorado <br />River Storage Project are required to meet the obligations of the Upper <br />Division States to deliver water at Lee Ferry and the order of their <br />authorization and construction is a matter of concern to all of the States <br />of the Upper Colorado River Division; that if the Colorado River Storage <br />Project is authorized, it requires united a~tion of the States of Colorado, <br />