My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01955
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD01955
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:09:12 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:05:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/21/1973
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
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.
/
95
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 />project be number one and this one be number two." We are recom- <br />mending that we stay with the sense of the Congress as they authorize <br />these projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: You are taking the position that the date of autho- <br />rization is the overriding consideration? <br /> <br />Mr. Goldsmith: Yes, sir. I think it is the overriding consideration <br />unless there are some other areas in which the people in this dis- <br />trict have been delinquent in carrying out their responsibilities <br />toward the completion of the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Well, let me put it another way. <br />siderations other than the date of authorization <br />this board take into account in considering this <br /> <br />Are there any con- <br />that you would have <br />matter? <br /> <br />Mr. Goldsmith: Yes. sir. We would very much wish that you would <br />look at the work that is done toward the completion of this project. <br />This project started to be built (unless we are going to get fired <br />for saying this) a construction start has been made that should never <br />have been made if there is not going to be new water delivered to <br />this project. At least, it shouldn't have been made in the manner <br />that it was. Before I lose this thought, Mr. Chairman, here we are <br />nine years from the date this project was authorized. I think most <br />of us are familiar with the curse that is on now if We look at the <br />National Water Commission report, and a lot of other people that are <br />taking a look at water projects, wanting to go back and have to go <br />through re-authorization i,f a certain period of years goes by. And <br />ten is one period that has been mentioned~ I just don't think we <br />can realistically ever expect to see this project if this board does <br />something that indicates that it is not fully behind the Fruitland <br />Mesa project. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: <br />Fruitland Mesa <br />should that be <br /> <br />Well, I am not clear in <br />ought to be number one. <br />taken into account? <br /> <br />my mind why you are so sure <br />How about benefit-cost ratio, <br /> <br />Mr. Goldsmith: Well, I am going to hedge just a little bit by saying <br />that I am sure you have the advantage of me in having access to the <br />OMB guidelines, which I don't have and we do see in reading through <br />these, there has been a recomputation under 5 1/2%. I guess I would <br />be a little bit surprised to find out that at this point in time we <br />would be expected to recompute without a basic policy decision made <br />that the state was going to recompute. As far as I know, we are <br /> <br />-46- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.