Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 34 <br /> 1 MR. STAPLETON: Well, it's not on the agenda. <br />. 2 MR. FETCHER: It's not. <br /> 3 MR. STAPLETON: I'm sure if you will be as brief as <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> 14 <br /> 15 <br /> 16 <br /> 17 <br /> 18 <br /> 19 <br /> 20 <br /> 21 <br /> 22 <br /> 23 <br /> 24 <br />. 25 <br /> <br />4 you always are in these matters. Is there any objection to <br /> <br />5 considering Rangely at this time? Hearing none, you are free <br /> <br />6 to go ahead. <br /> <br />7 MR. FISCHER: We did send a companion resolution on <br /> <br />8 Rangely Reservoir to the board members. I would like to point <br /> <br />9 out, if I may, that there's a certain amount of uncertainty on <br /> <br />10 the White River as related to a coal-fire thermo power plant <br /> <br />11 permitted by Moon Lake Electric Association in their organiza- <br /> <br />12 tion of something called Deseret--anyway, it's a G and T. The <br /> <br />13 question raised by the water supply has been amplified by Moon <br /> <br />Lake and Deseret, Burns and McDonald out of Kansas City. <br /> <br />We worked with Burns and McDonald as consultants to <br /> <br />Moon Lake approximately two years ago over a period of about <br /> <br />two and a half years, showing them that the water supply was <br /> <br />there. We used rather sophisticated computer analysis. We <br /> <br />find that it appears that the question of a location of the <br /> <br />300-megawatt coal-fire thermo power plant using Rio Blanco <br /> <br />county coal is now an issue that could become ever more politi- <br /> <br />cized because of several things. <br /> <br />Burns and McDonald, in my opinion, are not well-vers d <br /> <br />on the appropriations doctrine in Colorado, but we would hope <br /> <br />that we could' have funded the construction of a larger Rangely <br />