Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />to get this done within the four months' period for the statement. We <br />feel that it's imperative that the election take place locally as near <br />the first of the year as possible. That's about the best we can do, <br />but I'm not discouraged at all about meeting that. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Dave, I don't think I asked the question properly, or <br />I don't understand that I got the answer. To simplify it, when did we <br />last year say we were going to initiate construction of this project? <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: Our emphasis is to change the label before the end of the <br />calendar year. This would be by the first of January. We had our <br />apvropriation and turned loose on this in January of last year, and <br />we ve been attempting to do all of these things within this one calendar <br />year. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Dave, what I want to know is what the time delay has <br />been. ln other words, did we, two years ago or one yea~ ago, think <br />that construction would start on the Ridgway Dam this year? l'm trying <br />to find out what the delay has been. I was hopeful that we were coming <br />over sometime soon to start the Ridgway Reservoir. How far has that <br />been put back over the period of the last two years? <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: Well, it's been postponed since a year ago last May <br />because of the change in the plan and the elimination of the industrial <br />use. I can onli speculate. Maybe I shouldn't. Ed, would you comment <br />on the Chairman s question? <br /> <br />MR. WISCOMBE: Yes. After we had the change in the development of <br />Kemmerer Coal, we went back and made up a new schedule. My statistical <br />data here shows that schedule comes with the execution of the repayment <br />contract in September of '76. This is based on a plan without the <br />Kemmerer Coal and that was the schedule we were proceeding on. We had <br />the contract before the District. The District had approved the con- <br />tract based on a new plan without Kemmerer, with Log Hill Mesa develop- <br />ment. At that time the District was ready to approve the contract as <br />to form. There was a cooperative agreement with a change in plan again, <br />and this is the second change we've referred to. In assessing the <br />second change, we've come up with the schedule that we've presented to <br />you today. If we still haven't answered your question, keep asking until <br />we do answer it. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />M&. STAPLETON: I'm not going to take that much time. l'm going to ask <br />our Director to work out those schedules that we have in our office with <br />what you're now presenting. I'm going to try to assess, for myself at <br />any rate, what the delay is, who caused it, who isn't cooperating, be <br />it Reclamation, be it the State, be it the Conservancy Districts <br />involved, so that we can have a clear idea. <br /> <br />I would like to now say, Dave, that what you and I discussed today, I <br />think, ought to be on the record. This Board has cooperated fully with <br />the Bureau of Reclamation. I was aghast to find out that your people <br />were discussing substantial changes in schedules without first having <br />discussed them with Mr. Sparks, with whom, I think, you've had a good <br /> <br />-19- <br />