| OCR Text |
Show 68 DIXIE PROJECT, UTAH sion went to Dixie and grew cotton in southern Utah and even at that early time the cotton produced there was not really competitive. There has not been any planted or produced for 80 years or longer. Mr. ASPINALL. Is it your understanding there will not be any cotton or crops grown which are hi surplus at the present time % Senator Moss. Definitely so, sir. There will not be any surplus crops. Mr. ASPINALL. That is why I wanted to set the record straight. In S. 26 which came over here on October 30, 1963, in section 5 there is a provision that the cost of construction which is beyond the ability of the users to repay shall be repaid within 50 years from revenues derived by the Secretary of the Interior from the disposition of power from Federal projects in the Lower Colorado River Basin? Senator Moss. Yes, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. The Governor has sent a letter to this committee this morning via the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Burton, in which it is stated that the amount necessary to relocate the highway and take care of the highway improvement will be accepted by the State of Utah so that there would be no necessity for tying this project in with the problematical Lower Colorado Eiver Basin fund. What is your position in this respect ? Senator Moss. Well, I would be glad to take that amendment, also, in order to get the project. I think what this does is that it underlines the great urgency that there is in Utah for approval of the project to the point that the Governor and other officials of the State are willing to have the State assume a cost here that normally would be charged against the project; to wit, relocation of the road, rather than have the project held up any longer while the propriety of charging this against revenues and the lower basin was discussed. • In the hearings in the Senate and conversations surrounding those hearings, we discussed this very, very thoroughly. There was a degree of controversy on it and resistance although the Senate ultimately decided that the proper thing to do would be to draw on those revenues beginning in about 1989 when there will be a considerable surplus in order to build this additional project, sort of a participating project in the lower basin. Because there is controversy and because this might delay the authorization of the project, the State of Utah is willing to recede from that position if that be necessary in order to get the project approved and to undertake out of State revenues to relocate the highway. Mr. ASPINALL. You suggest controversy and a degree of uncertainty and is not that the important thing in this particular matter. You know the trouble we are having with the Eden project at the present time where our great friend from Wyoming saw fit to tie a project to an action to take place in the future ? You know the difficulties involved there, and do you think there is any degree of certainty about tying this to the Lower Colorado River Basin fund in definite language that is used here ? Senator Moss. I think there is a less degree of uncertainty here. I think the lower basin fund is inevitable and I think it is certainly going to come. My original draft of the bill tied it specifically to Hoover Dam revenues because the payout in Hoover Dam will come in 1989 and at that point there will be a considerable surplus. |
