WSP00164 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

......L GSli 28 1 FRYINGPAN-ARKANS.'S PROJECT, COLORADO These figures surely exemplify'mo.t explicitly the degree to which the Amerimn tn, payer by the approval of this project will be called \ : upon to funlish dollars that will only aggraVfl:tp and cause additional expenditures in other areas where we arc. trYing' to reduce surpluses. 'Just as significant is the fact tbat if we have any hopes of effecting an improvement in our agricultural problmll or even holJing our own, it will be necessarv for farm families in other areas to make comparable 'redudions in the~ production of alfalfa hay, smnJI grains, sugarbeets, and livestock. This they will be called upon to do at great s,wrifiee to their individual farm operation and at expense t,o t,he taxpayer. It seems not only unfair but discriIuinatorv that 011 the one hand we ask fltrm families to make substantial sacrifices in order to alleviate -R surplus problem and in other instances we provide large expenditure,s of public funds so as to pe'rmit others to expand their productiou capllc.ities. Such R program surely does not leave any indication of either fiscRl responsibility or equity umong furm fnmilies throughout j,he N ution. "'hile this progrum cnlls for Itn initilll approprintion of $170 million, this is only" smull IlIlrt of what the nctwt! cost, of this project will be to the N u.tion during the :renrs ahead. For it will be necessn.ry to expend addit.ionallnrge sums ill order to pay for the storilge of slIrplus commodit.iC's produced by virtue of this project. or t.o make payment.s to othr.r flirm fumilies for reductions in their product.ion thl! t ll10y be compl1rnble t.o these illcrenses. This project indic>ll,es the degree to which the Depnrtment of the Interior, Bureau of H.echullution, in rpcOIllmending this project, is in direct conflict with nil recommendat.ions nlld suggestiolls t.o iruprove the ngric-ulturnl situution lI1ilde by the Depurt.1l1cmt. of Agriculture. While this project proposes increases in production of ngriculLurul comrnodities, the Department of Agriculture. is very vigorously pro- posing progrllllls tbat \>In.ce restrictions and cOlltrols on segments of Rgrieulture to produce eSB. Therefore, it is our opinion that t.his project. is not in compliance wit.h either the ngricultural or the economic needs nf the Nation. 110\\" or in the foreseeable fut,ure. 5. From evidence whieh hILS been submitted over the yetlrS from it number of persons nlld orgnnizations on the western slope of Colonldo, from whel'f~ the wat,c.r involvecl would he diverted, St.rOIlCT objefjt.ions to the entire project.llllve beell registt~l'cd. The changes i,~ the present bill from prior lJills have not. eliminated the luhersc testimony. The people on the western slope of Colorado feel thll t (,he econom'y of the westl-.l-fn slope willlJe. damaged b:{ the taking of water from the Colorado- River Basin, where the supply is 111l'elldy short, ilnd pbtillg it, in t,he Arknnst,iS River Basin, where the present. supply hns lIot, be~1l fully used. fhey, 11S well ns some of the meInoers of t.he Comnlltt.cc on Interior I1nd IIlsubr Affnil's ]Hlse no ('onfidcIlee in the operating principles in the bill in connection wit,h lIses of wuter on both the eastern nnll western slopes' of Colomdo. Hesidcllts of -t.he west.ern slope 1ll'C fearful that this llnd rut.lIre trallSlllountl1in di\.er~iolls will stunt. the e<.'ollomic dc\relopmcllt of 1111 tHell which holds ellormous indust.l'iul potent.inl Hssnmillg there is wILter to St'.I'Vf~ it. It is rllther interestill<' to note that while the Colurado Wat,er TIonrd appel1red And testifit'd ~n fnvor of this project, the su.me bourd for years questioned the advisability of trl1nsmounta.in diversion in the