My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01706
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:06:07 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:01:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
8/2/1961
Description
Table of Contents, Agenda and Minutes
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.
/
123
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 />L4.5L <br /> <br />that some of those lines have some yellow tape <br />at the beginning and end of the lines. That <br />yellow tape is to indicate that those lines, as <br />such, are not required for the transmission of <br />Storage Project power, but that those are lines <br />which the investor utilities propose to build <br />as part of their own systems. The black, again, <br />is the portion which the federal government will <br />build. Now that portion in black is not in con- <br />troversy. The controversy developed between the <br />other portions of the two maps as shown. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I would like to briefly review the events <br />which have led up to the present situation. In <br />1956 Congress enacted a law which we call Public <br />Law 485, the Colorado River Storage Project Act. <br />The passage of that act culminated many years of <br />intensive efforts on the part of the people of <br />the Upper Basin and culminated over fifty years <br />of intensive engineering investigations. That <br />act passed by a very small majority in the United <br />States Congress and over great opposition. At <br />that time people of the Upper Basin states, and <br />their official representatives, were firmly united <br />in the passage of that act. Had they not been so <br />we would not have the act \n existence today. And <br />the situation that faces us today is that there is <br />now a division in the Upper Basin states pertain- <br />ing to the construction of these transmission <br />lines. A division to such an extent that the in- <br />vestor utility companies of this Upper Basin and <br />adjacent areas have opposed in the United States <br />Congress the proposed appropriations for the con- <br />tinuation of the construction of the various <br />project facilities. That opposition has been <br />carried over and it has been expressed also by <br />a division of opinion among the official repre- <br />sentatives of these four states. The situation <br />today, therefore, is critical as far as our proj- <br />ects are concerned in that these lines must be <br />under construction almost immediately if we are <br />to get the revenue that will be derived from the <br />generators at the various projects. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In Public Law 485 the Congress said, in Sec- <br />tion 7: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.