Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />staff of the board ~as to review all the .information presented in these <br />floodplain ,information reports. In some cases we have found them <br />insufficient and we have returned them for additiona~ information or <br />different format. Our flood control section is struggling tp keep up <br />with the volume of floodplain information that is being turned put. It <br />is a critical program. In some cases, it is controversial. We are <br />trying to accelerate the program as rapidly as possible in order that <br />people will know whether or not they live in a flood .hazard area. <br /> <br />In each case here on the agenda, the appropriate authority has reviewed <br />the floodplain information reports. I .think in every case the cities <br />and counties have been having public meetings to discuss them. Our <br />staff-usually participates in these public meetings and is available to <br />answer questio!ls concerning reports. We don't_know of any controversy <br />now concerning the 10 reports that are on the agenda. <br /> <br />- .. <br />MR. STAPLETO))l: All right. If it is appropriate, we can move that we <br />approve the f190dplain information for these projects. <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: S9 move... <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Second. <br /> <br />, - <br />MR. STAPLETON: Any further discussion? (No <br />signify by saying "Aye." (Ayes.) Opposed? <br /> <br />response.) All in favor <br />(No response.) <br /> <br />The motion is carried. (See APPendices C thru L.) <br /> <br />Now, I think it is time for the Director to begin his report. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: First, I want to report, Mr. Chairman, upon the status of <br />the two authorized reclamation projects which have been approved by the <br />President, the Dolores and the Dallas Creek. We had assumed that with <br />the President's approval that these projects would move along rapidly. <br />As a matter of fact, they have been ready for construction now for <br />several months. We had anticipated by this time that the initial con- <br />struction contracts would have been let for both projects. We were <br />advised about three.weeks ago that there was some problem with the <br />Dallas Creek project. It came as somewhat of a shock to us. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Public Law 485, which governs the Dallas Creek project, requires that <br />prior to construction of any of the participating projects for the <br />Colorado River Storage Project a repayment contract must be executed <br />between the federal gove~nment and an agency of the state government <br />which has the authority to levy ad valorem taxes. That fits the <br />description of our ~ater conservancy districts. The Tri-County Water <br />Conservancy District did execute a repayment contract with the federal <br /> <br />-27- <br />