My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01799
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01799
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:07:09 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:02:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/8/1961
Description
Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
104
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 />.::)~q <br /> <br />over the years. Now they say suddenly 'No, <br />that's not true', but we know it is true. There's <br />absolutely no question about it. You can't <br />correct for that differential between six per~ <br />cent and 13 or 14 percent on a multi-million <br />dollar investment. It can't be done and the <br />differential was what we counted on to build <br />the participating projects in Colorado. <br /> <br />But there are specific occasions when the <br />investor utilities should wheel power for our, <br />projects and those cases occur when we have a <br />relatively small load going into any area and <br />the investor utilities already have lines witb <br />some addi tional capaci ty . In those cases it 1, <br />is much cheaper for the federal government to, <br />enter into contracts to wheel that relatively <br />small amount. So the criteria that makes only <br />common sense is that the one who is carrying the <br />greatest amount of power is the one who shoul~ <br />build the lines. That is a practice which is: <br />carried on throughout every reclamation project <br />in the United States today. What they have pro- <br />posed here is a complete reversal of anything, <br />that we know of in the United States and we : <br />have examined every reclamation project. AS ~ <br />matter of fact, the transmission systems are <br />set forth right here on this map. Mr. Kuiper' <br />has already indicated that where the great <br />savings will occur is in an interchange of <br />power with the Four Corners area with the Ari~ <br />zona Public Service Company. If Mr. Ival <br />Goslin,of the Upper Colorado River Commission, <br />says that cannot be done then I think he should <br />no longer continue to serve as the Secretary-~ <br />Engineer of that Commission because that must ' <br />be done. We are willing to do everything in <br />God's world, in Colorado, to see that it is <br />done and we are willing to give the investor <br />utilities even the major share of the benefits <br />to be derived from that. But we say that some <br />benefits must accrue to our project also. <br /> <br />A great pitch has been made about the paV- <br />ment of taxes. Well, any taxes that the investor <br />-, ' <br />utilities pay as. a result of these lines ~~. <br />come from our Project Fund. There is no othe~ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.