My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00444
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00444
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:50:09 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:38:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/11/1961
Description
Minutes
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />proposed that the Upper Basin make up so-called <br />power deficiencies to the Lower Basin. We have <br />said that the Upper Basin is not obligated to <br />provide water to the Lower Basin in excess of <br />the compact commitment, and under no circum- <br />stances is it obligated to make whole the firm <br />power contracts at Hoover Dam. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Now the impact of that is simply this, that <br />if the proposed criteria is put into effect, it <br />could result in a loss of many millions of dol- <br />lars, an unknown number of millions of dollars, <br />to the Upper Basin. It could greatly delay our <br />entire development and throw out of schedule <br />everything we have planned. There has appar- <br />ently been some attempt at a compromise recently <br />whereby we would agree to share those deficien- <br />cies 50-50. I personally am opposed to that <br />procedure. I can see no compromise to any prin- <br />ciple which gives away half of something you are <br />already entitled to in the first place. I <br />never compromised a law suit when the other side <br />had no case to begin with, and I see no reason <br />wby we should start now, compromising money <br />which belongs to the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />It is strictly our viewpoint here in Colo- <br />rado at this time, that if power deficiencies <br />are to be made up to the Lower Basin, then <br />those deficiencies or money must be returned <br />to us after Hoover Dam is repaid. I can see <br />nothing more fair than that. Our proposal is <br />that we carry them through the repayment <br />period of Hoover Dam in 1987, and immediately <br />thereafter the new contracts which the Secre- <br />tary may execute for Hoover Dam power contain <br />such charges as may be sufficient to return <br />those power revenues to the Upper Basin. Such <br />a proposition is fair and reasonable. We <br />are going to propose that, unless some of the <br />other Upper Basin states see some serious ob- <br />jection to it or can propose something better. <br />We've got to move fast. By the end of this <br />month we will have those proposals in the form <br />of amendments to the Boulder Canyon Project Ad- <br />justment Act and to Public Law 485 to permit the <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.