BOARD01589 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'" ~6 MR. CRAWFORD: , '. done, then New Mexico could live. with this formula for the division of assistance. So, at Santa Fe, the action taken by the Commission was a package one. Colorado said it could not support a bill unless there was this division and that if a bill didn't contain this division, then I,think Mr. Delaney made it quite clear that; at least, he could' not support the bill. Utah said, in effect, "We can support a bill with this division provided the revenu~ from the' Central Utah Project'areused for the repayment of that project." New Mexico said, "We can support such a bill and such a division if the bill includes the provision about Indian lands. The Commissioners of the various states are' not bound to support any bill unless it contains the provision which that state has said is necessary. That is the reason I ask Governor Johnson if he would have any objection to having in the resolution an approval of these requests by Utah and New Mexico." "There is one other point having to do with this formula. It was very definitely under- stood that there was not going to be anything less than 46 percent for Colorado regardless of what figures they happened to come up with. There was evident disposition on the part of everyone concerned to give to the limit in order that we arrive at a fair compromise." Considerable discussion of Governor Johnson's proposed resolution followed. MR. PETERSON: , "I move that Mr. Chilson prepare a resolution along the lines that the Governor has proposed, with the addition of the condition pertaining to Utah and New Mexico has adopted by the Commission, and also, that he propose in his resolution a change in the wording which would leave no doubt that the power revenue allocations can be made prior to the time the cost of the power projects have been retired." The motion was seconded by Mr. Crawford, and on vote being taken, the motion was carried unanimously. I I