BOARD00549 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I page 2 of the report on the San Miguel and West Divide. Instead of $100,000, that should be 500,000 in each case for the advance planning. As the Board members well realize, it has been extremely difficult to formulate any recommendations concerning federal funding, in view of the attitude of the Administration towards some of the Colorado projects. We were extremely gratified that the President approved the' Closed Basin Project. That is one we have worked on now going back over 30 years. This board has attempted to get that Closed Basin Project constructed to relieve us of the burden of the Mexican Treaty. The 60,000 feet that was mentioned by Mr~ Mach was derived from the Mexican Treaty and the delivery which the united states guaranteed to make to the Republic of Mexico near El Paso. That is the basis for the first 60,000 feet of that project being a burden on the united States, not the people of the state of Colorado or New Mexico. It is actually New Mexico and Colorado which have to divide up that 60,000 annual burden to Mexico. That is just free water as far as we were concerned that we granted to Mexico, because Mexico doesn't contribute anything to the Rio Grande at that point; that is, down to El Paso. We might take it back unless they give us some oil. (Laughter.) We have had a number of meetings. The GOvernor has been back to Washington, along with Mr. Sherman and me. We have talked with the Congressional Delegation. We have talked to various people in the White House scheme of things and to the COmmissioner of Reclamation. The people in the White House and the Department of Interior are adamant in their opposition to the Savery-Pot Hook and the Fruitland Mesa Projects. They would not even consider some funding to reformulate the projects. We see no reason why there should not be some funds available to see if we could reformulate the projects. By they are adamant on that point. So on those two projects, we will have to see what we can do with state funding. The Colorado River District has already taken some steps in this direction. If we get Senate Bill 325 passed, we will get together with the local conservancy districts and the Colorado River District to determine whether or not it is feasible to rescope any portion of those projects. For instance, on the Savery-Pot Hook, if we get into it, we are not going to be concerned about the Wyoming portion of that project. A major part of the cost or about half the cost comes from the Wyoming side. We could reformulate that entirely as a Colorado project and perhaps reduce the scope of it somewhat. There is some potential for the Fruitland Mesa in connection with possible pumpback storage from one of the Curecanti Units. In any event, it appears hopeless during this current national Administration to attempt to get any money for'either project. " For the Animas-La Plata Project, there are no funds whatsoever in the President's budget to'continue'either advance planning or construction. Actually, the advance planning is virtually completed and will.be com- pleted during this current fiscal year. The Administration takes the point of view that, since the final environmental impact statement has -l7-