BOARD01528

• Board Meeting Date: 2/26/1942
• Description: Table of Contents and Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Minutes

/.

Colorado River Basin) suoh projeots are to be distributed first among
the Upper Division states and later among all the states upon an
equitable basis.

Judge Stone then stated that three questions required a deoision.
namely:

1. Equite.ble apportionment, among upper division states.
2. Type, size, nature and location of projeots.
3. Repayment of projeot oosts.

!fter oonsiderable disoussion, direoted mostly however to the
first of these questions, the following motion was offered by Mr.
Delaney, .

That the money to be paid to or expended in the Upper
Division of the Colorado River Basin under the Boulder Canyon
Projeot Adjustment Aot (as the Colorado River Development
Fund) be divided equally among the four states of the Upper
Division.

The motion was seoonded by Mr. .White, and after further discussion
was unanimously oarried.

The meeting then adjourned at 12~15 P.M.

When the meeting reoonvened at lr30 P.M., disoussion was resumed
as to the two other points outlined by Judge Stone. Attention was
then oalled to the resolution adopted January 16. 1941, by the Board or
Direotors of the Celorado River Water Conservation Distriot. whioh
stated that at that. time it was their opinion that money from the
Development Fund should be spent on projects oosting $125,000 or less.
and that the funds so spent should be repaid, insofar as the ability of
settlers on suoh projeots would permit.

Discussion of the me.tter of repayment rather orystallized around
the idea that repayment, at least in part. is essential to preserving
the integrity of these funds from the influence of pressure groups.
espeoiallywhen suoh groups are proposing very large projects, or
projeots which are not physioally feasible nor eoonomioally justified.
Repayment tends moreover to limit the projeots proposed to those'where
there is real need and real appreoiation of that need by those living
on the projeot. It was the general agreement that repayment. up to
the limit of the settlers ability was a desirable oondition for
projeots under the fund.

The question of the type and size of projeots was the subjeot of
muoh mOre disoussion. It was the.general opinion that the money from
this fund should go for small projeots, the diffioul ty being ade.quately
to define the word "small." One other use, auggested by Judge O'Rourke.
was also agreed to be aneoessary and desirable use of money from the
.fund; namely. as a subsidy, to a limited extent, whioh might enable
the repayment ability of settlers under a proposed Wheeler-Case projeot,'
with suoh subsidy. to equal the required reimbursement under the Wheeler-
Case Aot.