Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />462 <br /> <br />- 7 - <br /> <br />10. With this approval, the State of Colorado expresses <br />recognition of the value of the investigations and studies <br />made by the Bureau of Reclamation on this project. The data <br />presented in the report and its appendices contain information <br />valuable to the various interests concerned with the development <br />of a desirable project in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. <br /> <br />Respectfully yours, <br /> <br />Edwin C. Johnson <br />Governor of Colorado and <br />Chairman, Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board <br /> <br />Ivan C. Crawford <br />Director, Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: <br /> <br />"In 1953 when ~e other report was considered <br />the Board adopted a resolution at that time, <br />which is almost identical with this one, but <br />contained additional language requesting the <br />Secretary of the Interior to approve the report <br />and authorize construction without submitting <br />the matter to the affected States. There is <br />no point to that now, since it has already been <br />submitted to the affected States. The object <br />of the resolution is two-fold. This project <br />was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior <br />and we would like, if possible, in the San~uis <br />Valley, to get the Secretary to go ahead and <br />reauthorize or approve this report without the <br />necessity of going back to Congress for <br />reauthorization. We do not have much hopes of <br />that because the present policy, or the policy of the <br />office of the Secretary, is to require all of these <br />matters to be submitted to Congress. The only <br />reason we are trying to get around this is the <br />additional delay and also the risk of not getting <br />Congressional authorization. <br /> <br />The second condition' is that we are,trying <br />to tie this to the 1940 authorization. This <br />project, except being smaller in size, is almost <br />identical with the 1940 one. The one suggested <br />in the 1953 report was different as it included <br />a power installation. The size of the reservoir <br />