Would you consider a project that costs $1,600 per acre-foot to be economically attractive?

The testimony that we--the Subcommittee has received goes far beyond that, and points to the regulatory excesses that are actively blocking these projects, even when they are funded.

If the gentleman will yield before he yields back his time, I would answer by suggesting that he read the full written testimony, in which the witness has provided many cases where funding was available but the project was held up because…

You are not building anything right now. That is the problem, is you guys spend countless dollars and endless time studying, and you are now spending absolutely no time or funding to actually construct these facilities.

There is truly enough water for everyone and we can meet both our agriculture and municipal usages.

I urge the Bureau to do a better job in looking at them.

Clearly, we need to make the same kind of investments that our parents and our grandparents made in the 20th century.

This shift of purpose is fast becoming a direct and imminent threat not only to the prosperity of the West, but to our very ability to support our population.

We ought to look at ways in which we can do a better job.

I think you would certainly be studying them, which is the problem, and I think that gets to the crux of this matter.

The gentleman's time has expired. He will have to let it go at that. But we will have another round.

from 1979, Reclamation has not completed a single major dam, if you define that as over 250,000 acre-feet of storage capacity