Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and to show how they are related through the passage of the Colorado <br />River storage Project Act of 1956. ' In that 1956 act, some 21 projects <br />in Colorado were designated for feasibility studies. Eight of those <br />feasibility reports have been completed. Projects have been authorized <br />and moneys were appropriated by the Congress to construct these. I will <br />also cover some of the reasons for selecting these particular projects. <br />It has been the strong position of not only Governor Lamm but also of I <br />Governors McNichols, Love, and Vanderhoff to preserve, to the maximum <br />extent possible, a viable agriculture industry in this state. This is <br />one of the things that I will cover, this long state policy in this <br />regard. <br /> <br />I will cover some of the history of the projects, that is, from how the <br />benefit cost ratio changed from the time of authorization up to the <br />present time and why. I will give some of the costs and percentages <br />that have changed and some of the reasons for the change" In general, <br />I will give a brief overview on each of the projects emphasizing again <br />why the state government has supported them and to what extent we have <br />gone, over the years, to sift out these projects from many others. <br />Actually, over the years, we have studied some 50 projects here in west- <br />ern Colorado. I will explain why we picked these out in preference to <br />others. <br /> <br />The conservancy districts will give the local viewpoint, why, as.a <br />farmer, or as a businessman, from this community they think these proj~ <br />ects are important to them. They will emphasize the local impact and <br />local aspects of the projects. We are not quite sure of the rules for <br />the hearings, but we have prepared a tentative agenda. I would. like to <br />pass it out to the people who will be testifying. We only have a very <br />limited time. We have requested that about 10 to 15.minutes be reserved <br />from our time to use as rebuttal following the testimony by the opponents <br />of these projects. Just how that is going to work with this presidential <br />committee that is coming in here today~- I don't know. But we will try <br />to get the ground rules worked out perhaps later this evening. <br /> <br />The majority of time, the largest block of time, in every case is being <br />earmarked for the conservancy districts themselves. We have found out <br />over the years that those people can speak more eloquently, more intelli- <br />gently, on actual need in the project area than can anyone else. At <br />this time, we don't know for sure who the people are-that are going to I <br />be testifying:from each project area. I would appreciate it if you <br />would come up here afterwards and give me the names of the people who <br />are going to speak on behalf of these conservancy districts. I think <br />I have them all, but I am not sure. There may be some additions from <br />the Dolores. I don't believe there is anybody here from the La Plata <br />district, Savery-Pot Hook district, they won't be in until tomorrow. . <br />The Pot Hook is not on until Tuesday. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Who is responsible for the Fruitland Mesa district? <br />Who is coordinating that? <br /> <br />-12- <br />