| OCR Text |
DIXIE PROJECT, UTAH 9 nonreimbursable items in reclamation projects. These are for recreation, fish and wildlife, and flood control. The estimated figures listed for the Dixie project in this field are $ 1,563,000 for fish and wildlife; $ 2,883,000 for recreation; and $ 152,000 for flood control. There is no set procedure today for determination of nonreimbursable items and each reclamation project has been considered separately. The proposed Interior Department bill would establish a formula. This is important to the Dixie project because of House Interior Committee feeling that future reclamation projects should have the nonreimbursable item portions completely spelled out before approval will be given. The new bill from the Interior Department would hopefully clear this hurdle. Generally those are the new events which have occurred and which may effect the Dixie development. I have endorsed the proposed plan of development without reservation. I had the privilege of introducing the first Dixie project bill, offered after the Bureau of Reclamation had completed its restudy of this meritorious project. The bill was S. 14 of the 87th Congress, which was introduced January 5,1961. Senator Moss and the others in the Utah congressional delegation introduced similar bills. I call this to your attention to highlight my strong support for the Dixie project. The people of Utah are united in their earnest desire to see the Dixie project built after being under study by the Bureau of Reclamation since at least 1918. It was only World War II which blocked much earlier construction of the project at a cost that would have been but a relatively small fraction of the burdens which the people of Utah's Dixie are willing to undertake today so that the project may become a reality. Just as the people of the State are united, so, too, is the Utah congressional delegation. Thus, on January 9, I directed a letter to my junior colleague from Utah, Senator Moss, inviting him to join in sponsoring the Dixie project. He chose instead to introduce his own bill, S. 26. So that I would be clearly on record in support of the project I introduced my bill, S. 655, and, of course, Congressmen Laurence Burton and Sherman Lloyd introduced their Dixie bills in the House. The bills introduced by Senator Moss and myself were essentially the same, except for one provision in my bill which called attention to the already existing contractual arrangement under which the Cedar City area would receive 8,000 acre- feet annually. This language was designed to protect fully the interests of the people of Cedar City. When the Kolob Dam and Reservoir was constructed by the Kolob Reservoir & Storage Association in Washington County in 1956, it was agreed that Cedar City would construct works for the diversion of up to 8,000 acre- feet of water from tributaries of the Virgin River for municipal use. It should be noted that Cedar City agreed to reimburse the project for power revenue losses resulting from this diversion. In my testimony before the Senate subcommittee in Washington on May 7, I stated that it would be equally satisfactory to me for the subcommittee either to have Senator Moss' bill amended to add this clause or to approve my bill, whichever the committee desired. I was |
