WSP01884 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- 7 - There is an.impelling motive in our proceeding toward this major development in the Uppe~ Basinj that is, at present the Bonnevil~e Authority is applying pres- sure to develop Id~ho and Utah with Columbia River Power. If we do not expedite .< this Upper Basin d,avelopment we will lose our principal power market and in turn our ability to dev~lop the waters of the Upper Colorado River. B.1 way of explana- tion, we all.know ~hat the Bonneville Authority is practically at the limit of its ability to supply, iliowever, the authority is seeking a greater market area and planning on expandi-pg its production facilities in order to grab revenue which would otherwise go 1nto development of another basin such as ours. I would lika to make a short comment on my own personal feelings regarding expenditure of mone~ in our present economy. I agree with the water user who spoke at our Craig meeting. The substance of his comment was as follows: "We seem to feel, in this country, that we can pour billions of dollars into the rest of the world and maintain~ur position in the world economy without giVing a thought to pouring a like amo$t into development here at home. It seems to be the rule of thumb that we can economize here at home and be wasteful abroad and build a future for ourselves. In ~y opinion, a reversal of this practice would work to the great- er benefit of. our nation as a whole. If we are all of a common mind in furthering our own development, we must not balk at being a little bit greedy in forcing p~_ penditures of large'amounts of money for development here at home, even though plans such as we are discussing today seem to be quite expensive and foreign to our past behavior". , In my opinioa, the water in these hold-over storage reservoirs, to a certain extent, belongs to the lower basin, we are banking it for delivery to the lower basin and at the safue time we are generating power, the sale of which, supplies revenue which will ~ay for our much needed development. Glen Canyon will provide many benefits to both basins. However, we believe that Glen Canyon should be deferred and that o~her development in the basin come ahead of the construction of this project. N. B. BENNETt': I have a comment to make which concerns Bureau of Reclama- tion Policy on such 'a development as this Upper Basin plan. I realize that this plan appears to be a gigantic undertaking and is entirely new to the people of this area. The plan is not new. Such plans and developments as these were made pos- sible under the Hay4en-OIMahoney amendment Of 1939. This amendment makes possible and allows for baSiq development suoh as this. Under this act such projects as the Central Valley ~roject in California and the Columbia Valley Project are now under construction. . STONE: Are there any further questions? . PEABODY: Do you wish some sort of a resolution, concerning this Upper Basin plan, to be aqopted by this group? STONE: At the three meetings held on the western slope earlier this week, resolutions were ad~ted at each meeting. The Colorado Water Conservation Board would like to have siome speci.fic action by this group in order that we might make use of it in prepari~g a statement by the state. At the western slope meetings resolutions were pasSed which, in effect, endorsed the plan in principal and sug- gested that Echo Pa~ Reservoir and Gunnison River Reservoirs be the number one projects to be constructed under the 'btan. . ;.