|
<br />~
<br />
<br />0812
<br />
<br />MINORITY VIEWS
<br />
<br />The follQ\I,'ing SUllllllitry of views, in opposit.ion to the enactment of
<br />this hill, is suhlllitted os Illllinorit.y report: .
<br />1. The projeet. is tbe forcT1mner of the huge GUllmson-ArktlllStlS
<br />proje,ct.. Tile Bureau of Reellunatiol\ 's projeet planning report
<br />(1 950) d('sigI1l1tt~d tIle Frying-purl project, as t,hc "lllit.illl dcvelopJ.llent
<br />of the poteIlt.illl Gunnison-Arkansas project.." The GUlll1lS0n-
<br />ArlwTlstls project would probahly inv<?lve n. construction cost. HP-
<br />prollohing $1 billion. Alt.hough .it. is st.lited thllt tbe Fl'yill)?ptlll
<br />project ~\;ollld stlllld by itself. HllO t.he bill irldictites t.hat the GunlHson-
<br />ArkaTlsas project. is not cOllt.('.lI1plated, it seems prohfl.ble the people
<br />of the ArktlllSllS Vttllcy will not lLnd cannot be. slLtisfied with the yery
<br />sfllllll 1l11lOllTlt. of irrig-ntion water fllrnished b~'" tilt' projer'.t. (oTlp.-hfLlf
<br />ncn.-fo0t p('.r or,rr or Ipss on the arC:l to bp_ sl'rn'd) find. will rlP.lIlHlHl t.he
<br />GUlllli~ull-~-\.1'ktltlStlS proje~t. which, H('(~ordir[g /.0 IJl'CYIOUS Bureuu
<br />reports, wuuld divl'rt upwHl'f1 of OOO,(l(JO tH'I'f'-fr'I't. llnflllally froln tltr.
<br />Colorado Rin~r Basin or :J.UOIlt. 10 Lil1l('~ Lhl' llJllOUIlt. of walt'I' proposed
<br />for diversion h.y thf' Fr.yingpnn-Arlwllslls proj(~(:t,.
<br />2. Th('_ pl'ojer.t is suhstant.ially t.he same pl'oposnl thnt. hus !H-'t"1I
<br />previously reject,ed for consideration by the House of Represenl,ntnres.
<br />Consideration of thi~ legislation to authorize this development started
<br />in the 82d Congress witb the int.roduction of a bill upon wbich a
<br />Deportment report was requested but not receivHd and no he.arings
<br />were held, In the 83d Congress, on a bill coveJ'iug this projeet, the
<br />Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclarnat,ion held 5 days of hearings
<br />and ordere,l the bill reported to the full committee. The bill was
<br />reported to t11e House find a rule grant.ed. The House r{~fused to
<br />consider the rule and OIl July 28, 1954, by a vote of 195 to 188, de-
<br />feateu tbe rule. In the 84t.ll Congress, a similur bill, aft,er 9 days of
<br />hearings by the Subcommittee on Irrigntion anu Reclamation, \\'115
<br />reported by the Committee on Interior and IlIsuInr Alfnirs to the
<br />House of Representntives. A rule was grant.ed RT1fl the House., on
<br />July 20,1950, by a vote of 194 to ]79, agnin refused to eon"ider this
<br />legislat,ion. In the 85th Congress, the Subcommit.t.ee on Irrigation
<br />and Reclamation held 8 full ,Inys of henrings an,1 also field henrings,
<br />report,ed the hill to the full committee, and t,he full eommit,tee report,efl
<br />the hill to the House. A rule was gmnt,ed on August 1.5, 19.58, hut
<br />no action was taken before adjournment.. In the 8fHb Congress,
<br />substantially the same bill was again int.roduced. The subcom-
<br />mittee held 2 days of heitrings, but, no further action wn~ t.tlken by
<br />the Committee on Illterior and Insulnr Affairs. H.K 220li, ill the
<br />words of its author, has "~ * * yeT..\' little new to be IJrollght into
<br />the hCUl'inb"3 * * '*." \-ViJllc the changes are an attempt. (,0 hring
<br />the bill into line with reclamat.ion law, the hasic defects which lia\-e
<br />caused Congress to refuse to consider this bill stiB remain. This
<br />statement is substant,iated by the testimony offered by the Depart-
<br />ment witnesses because the substitut.ion of the Ruedi Dam and
<br />Reservoir in lieu of the Aspen Da.m and Reservoir makes no changes
<br />
<br />23
<br />
|