BOARD02203

• Board Meeting Date: 3/20/1975
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

The Reclamation Fund is made up of income derived from the fund itself -
payments on costs of construction and operation and maintenance - as
well as appropriations directly from the Federal Treasury.

To fully understand the Bureau of Reclamation's budget request and the
recommendation of the President for fiscal 1976 in the amount of six
hundred million dollars-plus - and may I say here that in my opinion,
this is not as much in actual purchading power as the appropriation in
the early 50's of three hundred and fifty million dollars-plus - one
should understand that the appropriations come from the reclamation
receipts as well as direct appropriations from Congress. As we consider
appropriations for the Upper Colorado River Storage Project, as well
as for the Colorado River Basin participating projects in Colorado, we
must realize that we get no monies from the Reclamation Fund as such
for these projects; and, that all appropriations for such projects are
direct avpropriations from Congress. This means, of course, that
Colorado s monies from the Reclamation Fund in fiscal 1976 are:

1. For the Fryingpan-Arkansas in the a.'tIount of thirty two million nine
hundred and seventy six thousand dollars and,

2. For investigation procedures in the Uncompahgre Project eighty
thousand dollars coupled with two hundred and twenty thousand dollars
of rehabilitation funds.

If I understand this correctly, this means that in the matter of the
Upper Colorado River Storage Project and the Colorado River Basin
Project with participating projects in Colorado, repayments will be
made directly to the Treasul7 of the United States, while repayments for
the Uncompahgre and the Fryingpan-Arkansas and previously constructed
projects by the Bureau of Reclamation in Colorado will be made to the
Bureau of Reclamation Fund. In reality, there is no difference in the
overall program, as far as the Bureau of Reclamation is concemed.
But, the matter should be kept under consideration when one speaks of
the large amount of six hundred million dollars-plus for the reclamation
program for fiscal 1976.

It is difficult for me to consider priorities of attention after final
authorization. However, it is not difficult for me to consider the
importance of the total Colorado Reclemation pr.ogram for any year and
especially this of 1976, as we each present our desires and figures in
support of immediate attention to the projects in which we are interested.
It is my feeling, however, that there should be no action by anyone,
I .hieh .ould .enerare a diviaive relarion,hlp he...en uo.

I suppose that I would put the matter this way, if I were making just a
short statement. It seems to me that the chronological order of first
attention and final authorization should be a guide for construction
priorities unless, of course, the final plans and specifications show
that the project authorized was not as originally represented - or
thought to be in the feasibility report. One such instance occurred
in the Upper Colorado River Storage Project Act when final study and
planning showed the Pine River Extension Project to be infeasible.

-7-