Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3 <br /> <br />satisfaction of two cOnditions. First, the town should be <br />required 'to obta.in a storage decree for the project before the <br />state 'enters into .a contr;actwit;h the town to cOnstruct the <br />project. Secondly, the Board is of the opinion that the town <br />needS to provide additional information satisfactory to the Board <br />demonstrating that there is a financially viable project. Absent <br />information satisfactory to the Boa~, the state should not <br />participate in the project. <br /> <br />RecQl\Imendecl li'ro~ect o~authodzation <br /> <br />The ~econd phase of a municipal water treatment and <br />distribution' sYstem fo~ the 'rown of pa~achute was authorized by <br />Section ~ of ChaPter 426, Session ~aws of Colorado 1981. <br />Subseq.uent to .this authoriz.ation., the Town. of Parachute..obtainecl <br />grant moneys from the Department of Local Affairs. and. other .funds <br />which enabled the to~n to complete the project to merethah twice <br />its. originally contemplated treatment .capacity. Under the <br />circumstancEls,the town. no longer has a ~ed .for the $200,000 <br />authorizecl' in 1981. At its February 5, 1982, regular meeting. <br />the Board, without objection from the town, voted to recommend to <br />the General Assembly that the project be deauthori.zed. <br /> <br />Compllanoewith Construction Fund Criteria <br /> <br />Since the adoption of the criteria set forth in 37-60-121 <br />(1) (b), CRS 1973., as amended, all actions taken by the Board <br />concerning the construction fund program have been in compliance <br />with tlle criteria. In pl;lrticular, the Board has . taken the <br />following steps: . <br /> <br />1. Nearly two-thirds of the Board's cost of the projects <br />recommended in this annual report are for projects which <br />will. increase. the beneficial consumptive use of <br />Colorado's compact entitled waters. <br /> <br />2. All applications for domestic water treatment and <br />distribution systems and flood control projects have <br />been rejected by the Board since March, .1981. <br /> <br />3. All feasibility studies initiated by the Board include <br />the informati~n required by .criteria (IX). . . <br /> <br />4. . The Board has embarkeO uPOn a major program to provide <br />front-end cost-Sharing for federally authorized <br />projects, reformulate and rescope other federally <br />authorized projects, initiate feasibility studies on <br />major new storage facilities, and identify and commence <br />studies on the dams in the stat.emost in need of repair <br />and rehabilitation pursuant to the dam safety inspection <br />program of the State Engineer'S office. All of this is <br />being carried out by the Board with an eye towards the <br /> <br />-3- <br />