Laserfiche WebLink
(1) set forth a detailed description of Colorado ' s <br /> proposal, and <br /> (2) direct the staff to prepare proposals for engineering <br /> services to rescope and reformulate projects for the <br /> San Miguel, West Divide, and Fruitland-Mesa Water <br /> Conservancy Districts . <br /> Both of these, as well as a third item, are discussed below. <br /> Detailed Description of Proposal <br /> At the November Board meeting, Governor Lamm presented a <br /> brief, one-page outline of the proposal to use CRSP power <br /> revenues for water project financing. 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 of power revenues <br /> could be handled. <br /> At the January 5-6 meeting, the Board 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 /> ways of handling the use of power revenues that I had outlined. <br /> Discussions in the last five weeks have proceeded accordingly. <br /> Based on those discussions, I believe that it is now time 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. Legislation can then be drafted <br /> based on the detailed outline. Attached for your review is such <br /> a detailed outline. <br /> At a meeting in mid-January, the CREDA representatives <br /> indicated that they would provide me with written comments on <br /> Colorado ' s proposal. Since I had not received their comments as <br /> of the writing of this memo, the attached outline does not <br /> respond to their concerns, except for two main items. <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 can gain what it seeks without <br /> federal legislation, then we would take a close look at any <br /> suggestions in this regard. <br /> Second, the CREDA representatives have indicated that if <br /> power revenues were to be paid directly to the Upper Division <br /> states to finance projects in lieu of Congressional <br /> appropriations for already authorized projects, then they would <br /> need assurances that such authorized projects would never be <br /> funded by Congress (because power revenues would also go to repay <br /> such projects ) . In this regard, the de-authorization of projects <br /> was discussed. I indicated that Colorado would consider the <br /> de-authorization of projects only if we were assured that power <br /> revenues would be paid directly to the state and that any <br /> MEMORANDUM -2- February 14, 1984 <br />