Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OCT-08-96 11,21 FROH.H.B.S.S. <br /> <br />10.970 247 8827 <br /> <br />PAGE 11/18 <br /> <br />f"- <br />in <br /> <br />r- <br />'-' <br /> <br />(1) set forth a detailed deseription of Colorado's <br />proposal, and <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />(2) direet the staff to prepare proposals for engineering <br />servie.s to reseop. and reformulate projects for ~~e <br />San Miguel, W.st ~ivide, and Fruitland-Mesa Water <br />'Conservancy Oistricts. <br /> <br />Both of these, liS ....11 as a third item, .are discussed belo.... , <br /> <br />O.tailed OescriDtion of Proposal <br /> <br />At the NOVember Board meeting, Governor Lamm presented a <br />orief, one-page outline of the proposal to use CRS~ power <br />revenues for water project finaneing. I expanded on this in my <br />January 4, 1984, memo to. the Board in that I discussed <br />alternative ways in which the use and control ot power revenues <br />could be handled. <br /> <br />At the January 5-6 meetins, the Soard directed that the <br />staff proceed with negotiations with the power customers and the <br />other states based on a combination of two of the alternative <br />...ays of handling the use of power rev.nues that I had outlined. <br />Discussions in the last five weeks have proceeded accordingly. <br /> <br />Based on those discussions, I believe that it is now tL~e to <br />outline Colorado's proposal at length. This will serve to bring <br />out details of the proposal for discussion and decision that <br />have not yet been dealt with. Legi.slAtion can then be drafted <br />based On the detailed outline. Attached for your review is such <br />a detailed outline. <br /> <br />At a meeting in mid-January, the CREDA representatives <br />indicated that they would, provide me with ~itten comments on <br />Colorado' 5 proposal. Since I had not receiVed their comments as <br />of the writinq of this memo, the attached outline does not <br />respond to their concerns. except for two main items. <br /> <br />First, they have reiterated their concerns about having to <br />seek federal legislation. I have taken the position that if <br />Colorado can be shown that it Clll1 gain what it seeks ...ithout <br />federal l~islation, then we would take a close look at any <br />suggestions in ~~is regard. <br /> <br />Second. the CREnA representatives have indicated that if <br />power revenues were to be paid directly to the Upper Division <br />states to finance ~rojects in lieu of Congressional <br />appropriations for already authorized projects. then they would <br />need assurances that such authorized projects ...ould never be <br />fu~ded by Congress (because power revenues would also go to repay <br />such projects). In this regard, the d.-authorization of projects <br />was discussed. I indicated that Colorado would eonsider the <br />de-authoriza~ion of projects only if we were assured ~~at power <br />revenues would oe paid directly to the state and that AnY <br /> <br />MEMORAA"DUM <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />February 14, 1984 <br />