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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />2443 <br /> <br />these proposals by the investor utility companies <br />is to build these lines at public expense for <br />which they will get free use. These are their <br />lines. At public expense they will be built and <br />they'll get free use of them. The tremendous <br />benefits which accrue to the utility companies <br />are not shown in any of these proposals. <br /> <br />-Ii <br /> <br />Gentlemen of the Board, we have studied this <br />now for some years. It's not that everybody is <br />wrong or that everybody is right. It's the fact <br />that one side is in this business to make money <br />and the only place that money can be made from, <br />or come from, is from the project revenues. The <br />other 'side, the Bureau otReclamation, can be <br />said to be a bureaucratic organization - which <br />it is. vie think that they have made some mis- <br />takes but we are also certain that they are not <br />$363 million wrong as these private utility com- <br />panies claim. We think that if this private <br />utility proposal is accepted, during the next <br />50 years applying the credits which will accrue <br />to us and be available during the next 50 years, <br />that we will lose something over $300 million in <br />power revenues to build our participating proj- <br />ects. And we can't stand it. So it is the <br />recommendation of our staff that this Board go <br />on record favoring the construction of the all- <br />federal system, with one exception. <br /> <br />'e"' ~ <br /> <br />We say that the all-federal system has not <br />gone far enough. There is a missing segment in <br />that line from Sigurd to Central Utah. That <br />missing segment we feel was brought about by <br />reason of political pressure. By any engineer- <br />ing standards that anyone wants to apply, that <br />segment should be in there. That segment was <br />dropped because of the great opposition of the <br />Utah Power and Light Company. If the Utah Power <br />and Light Company, which has a major stake in <br />this proposal, is going to dictate the future of <br />the Colorado River Storage Project we might as <br />well find that out now. <br /> <br />It is our recommencation that we approve the <br />all-federal system with the addition of a line <br />from Sigurd to Cent:l:al lTt:,,],. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.