BOARD01415

• Board Meeting Date: 11/1/1978
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

for those two projects. It contained a small amount of money, $75,000
for each, to continue the advanced planning, to try to reformulate the
projects to meet the President's objections. Yet they included in
excess of 200 million dollars in their analysis as being the cost of
the construction of those projects. Congressman Evans repeatedly made
this point in the hearings, and he repeatedly asked the Secretary, Mr.
Andrus, why that was in there. And his explaination was, "Well, we I
don't like those projects." And Mr. Evans said, "Well, we don't have
them in there for construction. We are trying to reformulate them to
meet your objections." It was like talking to the wall.

Then Mr. Evans asked the question about the revenues accruing to
COlorado from the storage project, the multimillion dollar funds that
we have coming in from the power revenues at Curecanti and Glen Canyon,
and elsewhere in the basin fund. Mr. Andrus then replied: "In Colo-
rado, you won't have a positive balance until the year 2040." Now, that
is an outright lie. By the Secretary's own annual report, we could pay
off the cost of all these projects, including the Savery-Pot Hook, the
Animas-La Plata, the West Divide, the San Miguel, all those projects
now authorized, long before the year 2040 and have excess revenues before
the year 2040. But the implication that Mr. Andrus made to the assembled
congressmen and others in the audience was that Colorado had no funds
for these projects. Yet I have here his own annual report which indi-
cates clearly to the contrary.

In view of the time elements, it was almost impossible to overcome
these statements, although a majority of the congressmen voted to
override the veto. But the inflation rate was a big factor. There
was a congressman from Massachusetts who was literally hysterical on
the floor of the House. He said, "We must support our President to stop
this wild inflation!" One of the best handmaidens that the President
had on the floor was that congressman from Massachusetts. Sometimes I
wonder if we elect handmaidens for the President or do we' elect an
independent Congress? In any event,' the congressmen from the west were
generally pretty good. We even got a majority out of California,
although not a two-thirds majority. In Colorado, we faltered a little.
We lost one of our congresspersons. But, by and large, we did quite
well.

I was greatly impressed with the Governor's activities. He personally
met with a number of congressmen, with the leadership. He had the
promise of the leadership that they would attempt to. override the veto,
which included the Speaker of the House. The Speaker did attempt to
assist in the override of the veto, a very unusual procedure. The
Speaker was incensed that the President had ignored the advice of all
the leaders of his own party.

The issue will come up again next year on the Narrows, the Savery-Pot
Hook, and the Fruitland Mesa. We know that for the Fruitland Mesa and
Savery-Pot Hook Projects, we have to make some revisions. We. must
re-scope those projects to meet some of the President's Objections.
This we are trying to do. But the President says he is not going to
allow us to re-scope them. On the Narrows, that is a battle we will
fight again next year.

I

-4-