|
<br />n02S~~
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />
<br />~~ ~;~lL 'Jr"f it',.
<br />~_ _ 1:1
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />North Dakota's CalTison Dam, outlet channel and a portion of the huge re$ervoir
<br />A U. S. Corps of Armr Engineers project 96% complete
<br />crease the tate of runoff and prl)- In 1960 the estimated expendj. of which $.33.4. billion is federal and years ago, but it does not touch
<br />duct' higher n~ fIe,ab for similar lure f?r. th{'se purposes was. also $160.7 billio~ is non.federal. <.Jf I dir~t]y ~n the reason ~or the
<br />rates of precipitatIOn. In other $1.1 billion but the appropriatIOn the ff'd('ral InvestmE'nl, $28.2 hL\- PreSident j; \'eto of the bIll.
<br />words, whilf' substanliall'to;;:rl'Ss request represented only 1.5. per lion is for navigation, flood con-I The bill was \"etoed because
<br />is h(-ing mad.;! In 1m- construction: cent of the total budget. Surh a trol. h)'dro-electric power and irri- thE're were 67 unbudgeted construe.
<br />of flood protE'etivc workli for thE' comparison is mililE'ading due to aUon, lion items in the bill as it finally
<br />protection or pn.'viously flooded sen'ral ('hanging factors, For in- That mE'ans an a\'E'rage ('apital' passed thE' CongrE'ss, The Presi-
<br />arE'as. the building boom is of itst>lf stance, during the period 1950-1958.: imestment of $1,34 billion a year.:dent raised no question as to the
<br />adding to the flood problem faster the m(>st re('ent date (or which all which is about one-third above the. merits of the proj<,cts addl'd to
<br />than prot<'Ctin' works ('an bE' the comparatj\'e information is all-lime high of less than $1 billion I the bill, He merel)' objeded to the
<br />"ulh, In ordE'r to c()~ wllh thelava,ilable, we fJn~ that al nation. for construction recommende,d forifact that unbudgeled Items were
<br />problem greater attentIon must be'al Income has In('rea.sed 51 per fl.'I(al )'ears 1950 and 1960, It lS ap- included in the bill,
<br />gj\ell tt> flood plain zonin;, ieenl; ~b) population increased I.'Ui par~l!t tha~ the arerage for the r~i Let us again go back and see
<br />The inescapable fact is that the'per cent; (C) cost of constructIOn rnalnmg 13 years mu;t, be well In what the picture was 10 )'ears ago,
<br />population explosion in this cotln.lincre~se:d 66 per <<,nt; and 4dl ap- excess of the: $t.3 blllton 21.yea,r I Considering only the Corps of En.
<br />try is accentuating and will con. proPflatlOns decreased 9,6 per cent. ;'}\'era~e previously rt-'ftrred to, if gineers, for riS('al )'ear 1950 the
<br />tinue to aCCt'l1tuate thc ne\'d for 111" incre3!;e in construction....e 3re to met'! the koown water President recommended funds for
<br />land, soil and water consen'ation co:.ls is JX'rhaps most a('('Urtltely requir~m{'n'-S --.hich \'i,iII ~ nl't"ded I 3]2 projE'cls. For (is('al yeaf 19fiO
<br />and development. rdlrtled in the Engint'ffing ~e""s b)' 1973. !~IS would mdlcalt' that the President ~ommended funds
<br />Increased population is a major R~rd cO,st of construcli~n index, the Sl,8 blllio~ would not be an un. for 186 projects, or these 186 proj.
<br />factor in our cxpandlO" f"('OnOffi)' DIsrel:ardml; population mcrease, fE'asonable figure. , t'cts. 40 would be completed With
<br />ncCt'SSitaling major capftal outJa)'s which is a measure of thE' nE'ed for There ~as been ,consldtrable the funds provided, If no new starts
<br />for induslrial expansion and do. resourCt' de\'elopment, an increa~ ('{Imment, 1Il . both natlonal and 10- wt:"re added by the Hou~ or Senate
<br />Tm'stic facilities. A ret"E'n! issue of of 66 ptr cent in the C1lSt or ('{In. cal, publlcalIons relall\'e to t ~ E' there would be only 146 projects
<br />tilt> e,s, News Bl1d World Reportl'trueuOll between 1930 and 19J:l ~Ctlon of the,Confress In oVE'rnd- in H:~ program for fiscal ).ear 1961.
<br />contains a \'try timely article by; wht'n applied to the recommend<:'d log ~ht' ~fesldt'nt s "eto. of ,t h I.' If tht> President wert-' to ('Oil-
<br />Sir Charles Darwin 011 the world's program for fiscal )'ear 19.',0 would Pubhc \\orks Appropnallon hill. Unue the no-n{-'\\',starts policy. this
<br />exploding population. 1 think it'indkate that, all appropriation of I am <<In,'ll1m thatlhb crW. progr~m would dwindlt to ,58 pro}
<br />H'r)' signilicant !bat the author about ,$l.8billlOO would be required dim of Iht action 01 the Con. <'C~ III 1963 and 29 pro~~ in
<br />cites lihortages of fresh water as to malnt~llo thc SOlrne 11."\"('1 of ('{I.n- frt'u "'-as haSf'd primarily on 1965, Of thl.' 67 u,nbudgeted Items
<br />tht' major limilmg factor to our,structlOn,;lS that proposed for lis. lack of ulld'"~tandin,.of thf' added. 52 w('re 10 the Corps of
<br />expanding eC'Onomy, It might ~: eil~, )'I.'sr 1950, , prable-rn and (If the proc('durt'li Engint't'rs program, or, these 52.
<br />appropriate, therelore. to re\.iew . Smce ~uch a flgurt ma)' appear II'$l.ahlishe-d 10 ellsure that proj_ 43 Wl-'re new starts whIch would
<br />what thE' federal go\'ernment is do- high. an mdl-'pendent chE'Ck,for r('a. ('cll afe fully jusUfit'd undt'r {'on. have a future comrrutment of
<br />ing to m('Ct this shortage. In the sonabl.eness may be, obtamed bY, M'f\'ative {'rilt'ria before ('On. S380,03O,OOO. That futuN! c,ommil.
<br />f~cal )'ear 19;)0 thE' estimated ex- rt-'fl.'rrmg 10 a report Issued by the Mruc1ion 15 initialt'd, and failure ment rc.pre~ents appr,oXlmately
<br />penditure for public works of &.he Departm('nt of Commerce In June of the adminlstflltion to rl'com. one.half )ear s C'OIIStructlon at the
<br />Corps of Eneine('rs and the Bureau 1959 on w'ater resource de\'~lop-I mt'nd ",'orh of lmpra'-t'rnt'nl. present ra~~ of appropriations.
<br />of reclamation was $1.1 billion and ment, In that report,t .....as pomted ~Iany cntics of the public works
<br />the appropriation request in that out. that, taking the JX'riod 1954- The pre\.ious discussion hri.eO)' progra"'! h~\'e char_g~ \.M:o Con.
<br />)'car amounted to 2,5 per cent of 1973, th,ere was a requlrt'me~t. for outlines the problem, anJ pro\'lde-s gress WIth lrrespon,slbllity because
<br />the total budgtt. a total mvestment of $214,1 bllhon. one simple comparison of the ftd.: of the unbudl:cted Items added by
<br />Nal effort today with that of 10'
<br />
|