| OCR Text |
Show DIXIE PROJECT, UTAH 97 Mr. BURTON. Inasmuch as you have raised the question again on this road, let me respond briefly to a comment made by the gentleman from Florida about what it was that the road commission was reaffirming. One of the reasons I asked permission of the full committee to have the minutes inserted was because it has explained it here. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, to quote, the director of the State highway says: In order to assure the people presently working on a congressional level, to acquire approval of the Dixie reclamation project, it is necessary to reaffirm our previous action of September 11, 1961, that we still stand ready to assist in acquiring the project by assuming the relocation of the highway which must be done in any event. They had taken a position that they wTould stand the cost, and as the chairman here has pointed out, if this money is used to relocate this highway, money that is programed for some other project is going to have to be used, so this is the position that the road commission was reaffirming. This information, together with the resolution and a copy of these minutes, was given by me to the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee. At the request of the chairman of the full committee, we contacted the Governor, because he thought, and I think very properly so, that he wanted in the record a full, complete statement by a responsible person who is authorized not only to speak for the State road commission, but also for the State of Utah, and so I hope that when my colleague from Florida rereads the record and sees what this is, any objection that he might have to the language, as to what we are reaffirming, where is the money coming from, et cetera, will be cleared up. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. DOMINT. I think one other thing ought to be said about the road to complete the record on this point, I have a letter addressed to me dated April 17,1962, from Paul F. Royster, Director of Operations for the Bureau of Public Roads, replying to our request for a review of the project planned and the pertinent part of the letter reads as follows: Since the State of Utah has agred to relocate this road as a condition precedent to the obtaining of the reclamation project, Federal aid highway funds cannot participate in the financing of the relocation of the highway to the standards the Bureau of Reclamation would ordinarily use if cost of relocation was being paid from project funds. Federal aid highway funds can, of course, participate in the cost of further improvements that the State might wish to incorporate into the work. In other words, if they raise it to a higher standard in the relocation, than its present standard in its present location, they could use Federal aid money to that extent if they wanted to allocate money otherwise available to the State; otherwise it will have to be a contribution by the State. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Udall? Mr. UDALL. This is probably very basic. I want to make sure I understand the situation. In a typical case where a Bureau of Reclamation reservoir is built, part of the project to relocate the road is paid for out of the project funds and must be repaid from project revenue? Mr. DOJ^ INY. That is correct. |
