My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01372
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01372
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:01:08 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:54:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/17/1976
Description
Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
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.
/
107
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />projects, that seventy-seven million dollars. <br /> <br />The bill passed both Houses of Congress and was vetoed by the President, <br />not because of the Mineral-,Vaasiilg-SAmendment, but because of provisions <br />of coal leasing, which was the major thrust of that bill. <br /> <br />On August 4 of this year, both Houses of the Congress overrode the <br />President's veto by a two-thirds majority, and that act has become law. <br />The thrust of that act then was that the states would receive fifty <br />percent:of all the mineral leasing funds, with thirty-seven and a half <br />being dedicated exclusively .to roads and schools, and the remaining <br />twelve and a half percent being available for other purposes, including <br />water resource projects. With Congressman Johnson's amendment, all the <br />oil shale money from the tracts CA and CB would be available for any <br />public purpose. So that opened all that up for water resource and <br />other ' types of activities. That seemed to settle the matter. <br /> <br />But it did not. At the time that the Congress was considering the <br />amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, it was considering an act <br />known as the Bureau of Land Management Organic Act. .Itls :actually' <br />known as the Public Lands Management Act of 1976. That act was quite <br />controversial. But in the closing days of the Congress, it passed. And <br />the rather st~ange thing about it was that it also had an amendment to <br />the Federal Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. But that amendment:removed.the <br />earmarking entirely for roads and schools and merely specified that <br />fifty percent would go to the -states. And that the fifty percent could <br />be used for any purpose as the state legislatures might direct, with <br />priority to those communities impacted by energy development. <br /> <br />So within a period of a few months, Congress enacted two conflicting <br />laws. The last law also had the same provision as the previous law <br />about the tracts CA and CB - that the money could be 'used for any <br />purpose. The BLM Organic Act being the last act to pass, it has to be <br />assumed that it repealed, in effect, the act of August.4, 1976. <br /> <br />The situation is today that fifty percent of all mineral leasing funds, <br />from wherever derived, can be used for water resource, roads and schools, <br />and other purposes as the legislature might direct, with priority to <br />communities impacted by energy development. This will require an amend- <br />ment to the Colorado law to conform to the federal law. I have prepared <br />such an amendment and forwarded it to the Governor for his consideration <br />in making his recommendations to the Colorado General Assembly. <br /> <br />The net effect, so far as_these projects are concerned that we are con- <br />sidering here today, is that there is today available sixty-six million <br />dollars plus accumulated interest. There was about seventy-seven <br />million that came to this state under tracts CA and CB, but eleven <br />million dollars of that has been expended. The unexpended balance is <br />sixty-six million dollars. 'All of that sum is available, or any part <br />of it is available, for these projects that we are considering here <br />today under the act of Congress enacted this last month. <br /> <br />In addition to that, we will receive at least ten million dollars per <br />year for the other mineral leasing activities in Colorado,: oil,p:rima:i:i;I.y, <br /> <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.