Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, in the amendment to the <br /> <br />2 proposed resolution, it says, "that the proposed project will <br /> <br />3 probably, on balance." I think it's general enough. We quali y <br /> <br />4 it by saying we are going to get an impact statement. I would <br /> <br />5 like to see the "probably, on ba lance" deleted. I f we are <br /> <br />6 going to endorse this--and personally, I think we should--if <br /> <br />7 we're going to endorse it subject to receiving an impact state- <br /> <br />8 ment and the other studies ~hat the law requires, then I don't <br /> <br />9 think we need--. If we're going to do it, I think we should <br /> <br />10 give the river district as much help as we can. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: You are suggesting that it read, <br /> <br />12 "that the proposed project is beneficial to Western Colorado <br /> <br />13 <br />14 <br /> <br />in particular"? <br /> <br />MR. GORMLEY: Or just leave out, "probably, on <br /> <br />15 balance." <br /> <br />16 MR. JACKSON: The proposed project will be beneficia <br /> <br />17 we've said it indicates that. It's qualified enough. <br /> <br />18 MR. FETCHER: That's fine. <br /> <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br />MR. MacFARLANE: Question. I was just wondering. <br /> <br />I don't have any problem with that. I was wondering what the <br /> <br />reason for putting that language in was in the first place. <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: I put it in. <br /> <br />MR. FISCHER: I was thinking about the decree, which <br /> <br />says that. <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: The thought I had in using that lan- <br />