Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In addition to BOR, the Offices under Larson's jurisdiction are <br />Environment, Economic Analysis, International Affairs, Program Develop- <br />ment and Coordination, Regional Planning, Evaluation and Project Review. <br /> <br />BOR was relatively inactive under Loesch. It failed to meet its <br />deadline - May 29, 1968 - set by law to present a nationwide outdoor <br />recreation plan to Congress. This was basically an update of the <br />Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission report of January 1962. <br />BOR started work on the plan in February 1964, and former BOR Director <br />Edward C. Crafts is charged with the delay. Crafts was forced into <br />retirement by the Nixon Administration early in 1969, but still BOR <br />did not submit the nationwide plan to the Office of ~2nagement and <br />Budget until August 1970. OMS never released it. O!{B also froze much <br />of the FY 1971 funding that BOR is charged with administering for out- <br />door recreation through the land and water conservation fund program. <br /> <br />Fed up with the delay, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed <br />in its report on the 1972 Interior Department Appropriations Act that <br />"the 1968 plan not be published." Now BOR should move ahead with the <br />second nationwide outdoor recreation plan due in 1973, it said. <br />Chairman Alan Bible, D-Nev., of the Senate Interior Appropriations <br />Subcommittee and the House Appropriations Committee were quite critical <br />of o~m freezes of L&WCF funds. Much of BOR's work is related to water- <br />oriented outdoor recreation. <br /> <br />WESTWIDE STUDY <br /> <br />The Westwide water study being carried out by the Bureau of Rec- <br />lamation under the authorization of the Colorado River Basin Project <br />Act of 1968 is in hot water. Real hot water. In carrying on a week's <br />interviews for this Wrap-up this correspondent could not find anyone <br />associated with the study outside of the Bureau of Reclamation who had <br />a good word for it as now planned. <br /> <br />One highly knowledgeable water expert associated with the study <br />said the problem with it is that "it has no constituency." The <br />affected states, notably California, Arizona and Colorado, the other <br />water agencies involved, notably the Water Resources Council and the <br />U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the House and Senate Appropriations <br />Committees and the House and Senate Interior Committees simply are <br />not sold on the study, which is billed as "the biggest water study <br />ever undertaken by any agency in history" at a cost now estimated <br />between $23-$24 million. Critics regard the study as too big. <br /> <br />The House report on the 1972 public works appropriations bill by <br /> <br />-3- <br />