My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJC01779 (2)
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
0001-1000
>
PROJC01779 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2012 10:49:02 AM
Creation date
5/12/2008 7:53:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153723
Contractor Name
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
72
County
Mesa
Bill Number
HB 95-1155
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Contract Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ <br /> <br />You will note in my letter to Mr. Daniels that the State not only loaned <br />Mutual Mesa Lateral Enterprise (MMLE) public funds without authorization by <br />the Colorado General Assembly, and approval by the Governor, but without re- <br />quiring a feasibility study from MMLE. <br /> <br />If the position is that the OMID feasibility study will suffice for MMLE, keep <br />in mind that the attorneys opined that OMID is subject to Amendment 1, but <br />MMLE is not. This means CWCS decided OMID and MMLE are separate enti- <br />ties. If they are separate entities, each entity must provide CWCS separate <br />feasibility studies and obtain separate approvals. These entities can not be <br />treated individually for votinQ purposes and combined for approval purposes. <br /> <br />It occurs to me that you should take charge of this matter to avoid further <br />appearance of self involvement. I suggest that you provide me, and Mr. Daniels, <br />copies of the rules of law used to determinate that OMID is subject to Amend- <br />ment 1, and MMLE is not. Although you may use the water activity enterprise <br />statue to argue MMLE is exempt from Amendment 1, you must also provide the <br />specific section of the rules of law used to opine OMID is subject to Amendment <br />1. These rules of law must include copies of each and every document, memo, <br />note, and all other items, from each and every State office, directly or indirectly, <br />involved in the issuance of loan C1532723 to MMLE. <br /> <br />If the persons mentioned in the request to Mr. Daniels have not acted ex <br />parte, you should be able to reproduce these documents and provide them to me <br />by August 17, 1998. If you cannot meet this request date, I encourage you to <br />respond to me by this date explaining why. <br /> <br />Why haven't I received the respons~ from your office Mr. Stanton prom- <br />ised? Have you ever given any thought to meeting on site with me and the other <br />OMID landowners named in the lawsuits to try to find out how these persons <br />have intentionally injured us? Does it trouble you when a citizen is forced to ask <br />for a criminal investigation of an elected State official, and an officer of the court, <br />to try to protect his individual rights? <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~ ~ /C~/' C-uu- <br /> <br />Charles L. Campbell <br />286 33 Road <br />Palisade, CO 81526 <br />970-434-9619 <br /> <br />encl. <br />AGCVRL TR <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.