Laserfiche WebLink
<br />had no objections to removing the salinity control projects <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />from his motion and that, secondly, his motion was intended <br /> <br />j <br />. <br />J <br /> <br />to confirm the Board's previously adopted priorities for the <br /> <br />> <br /> <br />Narrows and Animas-la Plata projects. With leave of the <br /> <br />, <br />1 <br /> <br />second to his motion, Mr. Jackson revised his motion <br /> <br />accordingly. Mr. Johnston then suggested that the Grand Mesa <br /> <br />project should be among those for which the Board requested <br /> <br />one million dollars for continuing planning. There being no <br /> <br />ojections, Mr. Jackson with the leave of the second to the <br /> <br />motion, revised his motion accordingly. There being no <br /> <br />further discussion, the motion, as revised, passed on an <br /> <br />unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br />With respect to the salinity control projects, with <br /> <br />reference to which Mr. Jackson had deleted from his previous <br /> <br />motion, Mr. Johnston moved, seconded by Mr. Jackson, that the <br /> <br />Board support the President's appropriation requests for <br /> <br />construction and planning on salinity controi projects with <br /> <br />the observation that the operation and maintenance on such <br /> <br />projects must reflect the substantial Federal oblIgation to <br /> <br />meet national and basinwide water quality goals, said support <br /> <br />to be of the same priority of the Board's support of the <br /> <br />President's appropriation requests for continuing <br /> <br />construction fundIng on the Closed Basin, Fryingpan Arkansas, <br /> <br />Dolores, and Dallas Creek projects. Brief discussion ensued <br /> <br />during which Mr. Mike Clinton, of the Colorado River Water <br /> <br />Quaiity Office, U.S. Water and Power Resources Service, <br /> <br />-10- <br />