Aspinall Expresses Concern

(1)

sh.

w ter roject in i line

From the Daily Sentinel Washington Bureau

• inall. D-Colo., of the ous

Int rior

c

itt h s told th OU A ro riation Public ubcommitt if wat r projects in th pi elin are not soon

e ca:iune.nt abou th Fruitland a very

roj ts land n ~th Color do nd S thw t rn ~ ing, but i t 1 o a l i to s v ral other projects ich h v ubj t

to budget Thy inalu

nd ico, D lla Creek, n Higu l, Dolor , all in W stern Colo· rado d all uthoriz by th 19 8 Colorado iv r in Act.

hi concern about vir lly all of th ro-jeo _ir _lanning_fun _ing_{• • • •}fr n for th 1971 fi

-cal L_ear ich nd d n June 30. Th planning y, $225,000, ro-t i l l - •

for

th av ry ot authoriz in 1965.

Congres has voted planning n y as follow 1 Dolor , $160,000:

Dallas Cr k, $150,000: San Migu 1, 100,000

The enat voted $830,000 for th • • ... Fruitland project

for fiscal 1972, $600,000 mo than th 200, 000 llowed by the ous •.

And Utah ha b n successful in getting $200,000 in con truction mon y

(2)

2-water projea-ta in pipeline waabn xx x money

on ita reoently-at.arted .Jenaen unit of the Central Utah project. All are Upper Colorado ~tioi.pating project•, with heavy emphasis on

ir-rigati.on and water aupply. It hae been tough to get. them moving. c.i thia point Aspinall

•tat.a,

•1 aonai4er withOQt. your

willing-nu• to face up tot....! iaJ1Uea o~ adequate public works funding, one can only iiilagine what the aituation would be. W• wou14n • t have any at

an $800,000 appropri tion, the Savery-Pet Book project a $500,000 appropri~

ation. These projeota have been authorized for over a:l.x years now, and they certainly need attention. PJ:.tetty soon it. •Y be neaeeaary to go all over thelll again•• far aa atudy ie

conoernea,•

he told the

Bou••

Public Work• Appropriation• Subaanmittee.

It ia well knotm that the Office of JlanagfJIMnt and Budget tak'1/a

dim view of project-. with •ignilicant irrigation benefita, even thaugh

I

work ia the only way that 118at.ern at.ates oan keep thaJ.Jl

. I

water under Welltern water right.I doatxine. an thi• point, DepUty Di• reams: e&apar

w.

Weinberger

or

CIG reoently told th• Bouse Public WOrka

Appropriatian• 8uboonanittee,

"*

hav• to be concerned (at QUI) wh4tll the ' cost. estimate of a total project baa very •harply ri.aen o,: when we are

adviaed by ••• tbe aureau of Jtecla8t.1on of ahan;e• in aonditiona and other matters and other factor• that

lead

t.o that.. We aleo have to be

I

oonaemed with the bene~it-aoat. ratio.• When thaae f._ora ooaur.

Wein

~

... berger at.atacl, <118 reexamine• a project and often rec::onnenda it, or

part of it, for deferral. ·CJIB 1• 1n the proc••• of re-examining sever-al project.a, i t ta understood here, undencoring A.apinall'.• aon~eri:i• 1

(3)

3--water ojeat in lin wa xx oonc rn

• John 3. Bhod jor factor an ranking public n

lio Worlta ropriation ubc t , r iterated

inall de. •tho you will consider i lin9"

Rhodes told Weinberg _• in " of wa er roj 8 " going down in

both th Cor • of gineers and the Bur u of thia,

th is likely to b aunt rodu tiv in the years to c

number of

is not going d , an th t'a one f jor robl _{• i t · - ·}

to "1973, 1974 and 197 .•

Concern about ounting g arnment • ding in y rs ahead not only f

ter rojeot.8 but lso for ther gov rnment rogr

'

uah as ndatory

soc 1 • urity yments, eterana• pen ions, public aai ta.no grants

has for cautious in al ing jor new 8Xl>en4iture 1n years

ah _• At the a iscount rate ia

about to be pos eta in the lanning stage. It ia

certain if most f the U r sin projects n ted abov held for

or r authorization, they ld likely be ah lv o the two

i ttees, notably th ous c t bing very hard

t oj ta into th conatru tion tage. It ia

evid-ent that tar rojeots 111W1t .mnva ahea • they re authorised, i t stated

'

in i r rt on the 972 ublic: ork• funding bill, • urgent water