My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01415
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01415
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:01:34 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:54:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/1/1978
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.
/
95
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 />MR. SHERMAN: I will. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I'm sure there is no dissent from that comment. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I might add that there were other bills up, too, that were <br />of critical importance to us in Colorado, and we got all of those bills <br />through--the Fry-Ark and the litigation which would seek to enjoin the <br />construction of everything on the Colorado River. I will touch upon <br />those later in the director's report. <br /> <br />Mr. Goslin is here. He played a key role on the legislation on the <br />Colorado River. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: All right. We will then turn to item 3, the proposed <br />ratification of the agreement regarding the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. <br />There is material in your folder. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: There is one other thing, Mr. Chairman, on the previous <br />agenda item. You will recall that we did recommend the construction of <br />one project this year, the Larkspur Project. This was the only project <br />that we processed completely. We consider the water supply system in <br />that area to be extremely critical. It is a domestic wat~r situation. <br /> <br />Simply to keep something before the legislature, we felt that we should <br />have at least one project this year. The Larkspur Project is a rela- <br />tively small project as far as state funding is concerned. There is a <br />possibility that at least one or two of the projects already authorized <br />will not need the funding that the state has offered to provide, because <br />it appears that at .least one or two of them will have received adequate <br />federal funding by way of grant~ and loans whereby th~ state funding will <br />not be needed. So the staff has recommended that we approve for sub- <br />mission to the General Assembly this year the Larkspur Project. I think <br />there are representatives from the Larkspur community here. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Then I take it that the Larkspur community has been <br />informed of the difficulty of this. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Yes. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: And there is only hope and no promise in connection <br />with it. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: That is correct. It would be in the lowest priority at <br />this time, but we are quite confident that at least one project that is <br />on the current list will not request state funding. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br />the approval of <br />Board. <br /> <br />So I take it that the action that should be taken is <br />the Larkspur Project as an authorized project for the <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Yes, I believe there are one or two people here from the <br />Larkspur area who would like to comment. <br /> <br />MR.. GORMLEY: Could I ask a question? <br /> <br />-13- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.