226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Public Works Appropriation Bill - Report
No full textDocument: 87th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Report No. 1125, Public Works Appropriation Bill, 1962, September 6, 1961, page 3535
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1962
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS (SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM)
The budget request of 166,744,880
Estimate, 1962 155,650,000
Recommended, 1962 153,283,500
Comparison:
Appropriation, 1961 -13,461,380
Estimate, 1962 -2,366,500
The funds appropriated under this heading are distributed to projects and activities as shown in the following table: As a result of low bids, delays, and other unforeseen circumstances since preparation of the budget, the Bureau has offered reductions in the original request on certain projects. These are identified by an asterisk in the table which follows:Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,020,743 byte
Public Works Appropriation Bill - Report
No full textDocument: 87th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Report No. 1125, Public Works Appropriation Bill, 1962, September 6, 1961, page 4444
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1962
REDUCTIONS IN BUDGET ESTIMATES
Glen Canyon Unit.-In making the reduction below the budget estimate the Committee recommends deletion of the funds programmed for the protection of the Rainbow Bridge National Monument. This action is the same as was taken in connection with the 1961 bill, based on the fact that protection of this bridge would cost an estimated 20,000,000 in order to build the complicated structures necessary to provide the protection proposed.
General Reductions.-The budget presentation contemplated a general reduction in new money requirements of 10,000,000 on the basis of actual unobligated balances, existing on June 30,1961, and which will be available in 1962, and on the fact that much of the new construction contemplated on the projects involved cannot now be undertaken until later in the fiscal year than was contemplated at the time the budget was prepared.
OTHER ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recreation and Fish and Wildlife facilities.-A total of 2,200,000 of available funds for recreational and fish and wildlife facilities during fiscal year 1962. This is a reduction of 41,000,000 but has not been planned in detail. The Committee feels that a more modest start is appropriate until all planning is completed and the details of the program can be considered by the Congress.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriation, 1961 $4,572,000
Estimate, 1962 9,430,000
Recommended, 1962 9,430,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 1961 +4,858,000
Estimate, 1962Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,440,458 byte
87th Congress, 1st Session
No full textDocument: "[Full Committee Print], Union Calendar No., 87th Congress, 1st Session, H.R., In the House of Representatives, September 6, 1961", September 6, 1961, page 22
1 year ending June 30, 1962, for civil functions administered
2 by the Department of the Army, certain agencies of the
3 Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commis-
4 sion, the Tennessee Valley Authority and certain study
5 commissions, and for other purposes, namely:
6 TITLE I-CIVIL FUNCTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF
7 THE ARMY
8 CEMETERIAL EXPENSES
9 SALARIES AND EXPENSES
10 For necessary cemeterial expenses as authorized by law,
11 including maintenance, operation, and improvement of na-
12 tional cemeteries, and purchase of headstones and markers
13 for unmarked graves; purchase of four passenger motor
14 vehicles, of which three shall be for replacement only;
15 maintenance of that portion of Congressional Cemetery
16 to which the United States has title, Confederate burial
17 places under the jurisdiction of the Department of the
18 Army, and graves used by the Army in commercial ceme-
19 teries; 17,000, but such limitation may be
25 increased by such additional amounts as may be required toEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,250,824 byte
87th Congress, 1st Session
No full textDocument: "[Full Committee Print], Union Calendar No., 87th Congress, 1st Session, H.R., In the House of Representatives, September 6, 1961", September 6, 1961, page 2222
1 determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting
2 principles.
3 Not to exceed 5 per centum of appropriations made avail-
4 able for the fiscal year 1962 for "Operating expenses" and
5 "Plant acquisition and construction" may be transferred be-
6 tween such appropriations, but neither such appropriation,
7 except as otherwise provided herein, shall be increased by
8 more than 5 per centurn by any such transfers, and any such
9 transfers shall be reported promptly to the Appropriations
10 Committees of the House and Senate.
11 No part of any appropriation herein shall be used to
12 confer a fellowship on any person who advocates or who is a
13 member of an organization or party that advocates the over-
14 throw of the Government of the United States by force or
15 violence or with respect to whom the Commission finds, upon
16 investigation and report by the Civil Service Commission on
17 the character, associations, and loyalty of whom, that reason-
18 able grounds exist for belief that such person is disloyal to
19 the Government of the United States: Provided, That any
20 person who advocates or who is a member of an organiza-
21 tion or party that advocates the overthrow of the Govern-
22 ment of the United States by force or violence and accepts
23 employment or a fellowship the salary, wages, stipend, grant,
24 or expenses for which are paid from any appropriatin con-
25 tained herein shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction,Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,881,610 byte
Public Works Appropriation Bill, 1982
No full textDocument: 87th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Public Works Appropriation Bill, 1962, September 6, 1961, page 2121
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1962
Belleville locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia 900,000 900,000
Capt. Anthony Meldahl locks and dam, Kentucky and Ohio. (See Kentucky.)
Cleveland Harbor:
(a) Bridge replacements, widening Cuyahoga and Old rivers, and deepen channel in east basin of outer harbor (1958 act) 284,000 284,000
(b) 28-foot approach channel, 27-foot entrance channel, 27-foot river channel, 28 feet in West Basin (1960 act) 400,000 400,000
Cleveland Harbor (east and west breakwaters) 200,000 200,000
Conneaut Harbor (east and west breakwaters) 17,000 17,000
Fairport Harbor 27-29-foot channels and turning basin 67,000 67,000
Lorain Harbor (1960 act) 118,000 418,000
Markland lock and dam, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. (See Kentucky.)
Pike Island locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia 14,600,000 14,600,000
Racine locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia 75,000 75,000
Sandusky Harbor (east jetty) 10,000 10,000
Sandusky Harbor (1960 act) 500,000 500,000
Shenango River Reservoir, Pa. and Ohio. (See Pennsylvania.)
Toledo Harbor (1960 act) 30,000 330,000
West Branch Reservoir, Mahoning River 2,600,000 2,600,000
*Reductions due to low bids, delays, etc.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,204,583 byte
Public Works Appropriation Bill, 1990
No full textDocument: 87th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Public Works Appropriation Bill, 1962, September 6, 1961, page 2929
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1962
REDUCTIONS IN BUDGET ESTIMATES
Jackson Lock and Dam, Alabama.-The budget estimate of 50,000 has been retained in the bill. This is a reduction of 195,000.
IWW, Miami to Key West, Florida.-The 600,000 was for beginning construction of a 2.2 mile, 36 foot deep channel, with a total cost of 11,931,000. The actual unobligated balance as of this date was 34,400,000 more than was anticipated in the budget. The Committee has made an equivalent reduction in the new fund request because of this carryover.
OTHER ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recreation Facilities, Completed Projects.- The increase of 150,000 available.
Holt Lock and Dam, Alabama.- The budget contains $750,000 which the Committee has allowed for beginning construction on the Holt Lock and Dam project on the Warrior River. A power installation of 40,000 KW is contemplated in the project. It has been anticipated that the power installation would be undertaken by non-Federal interests under a Federal Power Commission license. SuchEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,822,723 byte
Public Works Appropriation Bill, 2000
No full textDocument: 87th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Public Works Appropriation Bill, 1962, September 6, 1961, page 3939
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1962
Garrison diversion unit. (See North Dakota.)
Oahe unit 19,875 19,875
Wyoming: Yellowtail unit. (See Montana).
Transmission division 19,112,000 20,782,000
Drainage and minor construction 1,490,000 1,490,000
Subtotal, construction and advance planning (Missouri River Basin) 55,132,000 1,760,000 55,132,000 1,760,000
Investigations 860,000 860,000
Other department agencies 3,000,000 2,800,000
Total, Missouri River Basin project 58,992,000 1,760,000 58,792,000 1,760,000
Subtotal, construction and rehabilitation 166,750,000 166,270,500
Undistributed reduction based on anticipated delays -11,100,000 -12,987,000
Total, construction and rehabilitation 155,650,000 153,283,500
*Reductions due to low bids, delays, etc.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,121,057 byte
Determination of the Rights of the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River, Opinion
No full textDocument: 88th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Document No. 20, Determination of the Rights of the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River, Opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the Case of State of Arizona, Plaintiff, v. State of California et al, Rendered June 3, 1963, Presented by Mr. Hayden, June 4, 1963, page 5451
ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA.
that enough water was reserved to irrigate all the practicably irrigable acreage on the reservations. Arizona, on the other hand, contends that the quantity of water reserved should be measured by the Indians' "reasonably foreseeable needs," which, in fact, means by the number of Indians. How many Indians there will be and what their future uses will be can only be guessed. We have concluded, as did the Master, that the only feasible and fair way by which reserved water for the reservations can be measured is irrigable acreage. The various acreages of irrigable land which the Master found to be on the different reservations we find to be reasonable.
We disagree with the Master's decision to determine the disputed boundaries of the Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation. We hold that it is unnecessary to resolve those disputes here. Should a dispute over title arise because of some future refusal by the Secretary to deliver water to either area, the dispute can be settled at that time.
The Master ruled that the principle underlying the reservation of water rights for Indian Reservations was equally applicable to other federal establishments such as National Recreation Areas and National Forests. We agree with the conclusions of the Master that the United States intended to reserve water sufficient for the future requirements of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge, and the Gila National Forest.
We reject the claim of the United States that it is entitled to the use, without charge against its consumption, of any waters that would have been wasted but for salvage by the Government on its wildlife preserves. Whatever the intrisic merits of this claim, it is inconsistent with the Act's command that consumptive use shall be measured by diversions less returns to the river.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,718,047 byte
Determination of the Rights of the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River, Opinion
No full textDocument: 88th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Document No. 20, Determination of the Rights of the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River, Opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the Case of State of Arizona, Plaintiff, v. State of California et al, Rendered June 3, 1963, Presented by Mr. Hayden, June 4, 1963, page 7116
ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA.
he thought the Secretary would be required to deliver water to those who had appropriated it; then he said this would be required "[i] f they contract"; then he agreed the Secretary might withhold water "as he sees fit"; then he "doubt[ed] very much" whether the Secretary could disregard Los Angeles' appropriations; finally he said "possibly" the Secretary might utterly ignore appropriations. This shifting dialogue can scarcely be deemed an authoritative, or even useful, aid to construction of the statute.
Nor is there warrant for the Court's reliance on the statements of such opponents of the bill as Utah's Representative Douglas and Arizona's Representative Colton. Objections of opponents of a bill are seldom significant guides to its construction. See Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 394-395. And in any event in this instance the opponents themselves were far from consistent in their views.23Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,591,734 byte
Determination of the Rights of the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River, Opinion
No full textDocument: 88th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Document No. 20, Determination of the Rights of the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River, Opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the Case of State of Arizona, Plaintiff, v. State of California et al, Rendered June 3, 1963, Presented by Mr. Hayden, June 4, 1963, page 7520
ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA.
other purposes, indicate by negative implication that the Secretary may ignore all other appropriations. This provision was drafted by the Upper Basin States in order to insure that the condition of the Compact had been met to relieve them from the claims of perfected users below.29Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,557,680 byte