Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0'1 r -? f.) '0 ':) <br />u ~.,. &';".,- J <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-6- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />, . . .. <br /> <br />unduly adding to the backlog. A legislative program structured <br /> <br />along these lines resulted in six or seven new projects with an <br /> <br />aggregate cost of about $150 million in the 9lst Congress. <br /> <br />Much the same can be said about the pros and cons of auth- <br /> <br />orizing new feasibility studies. The Committee has settled on <br /> <br />a procedure of taking up these measures in alternate years. In <br /> <br />1970, we did not have a study authority bill. Whether we have one <br /> <br />this year turns, at the moment, on the Administration's recommenda- <br /> <br />tions in this area. So far, we have no draft legislation and <br /> <br />considering the lateness of the session it looks increasingly doubt- <br /> <br />ful that we will be authorizing any new study starts. <br /> <br />In my testimony last year, Mr. Chairman, I came out strong for <br /> <br />an adequate level of funding for the so-called Westwide Study. <br /> <br />This is, of course, the reconnaissance investigation of the 11 <br /> <br />western States authorized by the Colorado River Project Act of <br /> <br />1968. While I still subscribe to the objectives of the study and <br /> <br />view it as one of the truly important undertakings of our time in <br /> <br />the water resource development field, I am not as enthusiastic <br /> <br />about it as I once was. This is for the reason that we do not see <br /> <br />any indications of real progress. It is true that the Department <br /> <br />has put together a management structure of hugh proportions and <br /> <br />has apparently spent a lot of effort on a study prospectus. Some <br /> <br />of us feel that perhaps too much effort has gone into this prelim- <br /> <br />inary maneuvering with not enough attention to getting down to <br />