Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />is there any reasen it could net proceed witheut waiting fer the changes <br />en the Wyeming side? <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: I think that'a a very valid questien. We've always <br />viewed it as a single two-state preject which requires separate repay- <br />ment centracts. Perhaps that's an appreach that might be effective and <br />ene in,which this board weu1d want to take an active interest in. <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: I weuld suggest we preceed that way. <br />MR. CRANDALL: I den't knew what the se1iciter weu1d say. <br />MR. FETCHER: De you see my point, Ben? <br />MR. STAPLETON: Yes. Yeu've agreed to. explere that? <br />MR. CRANDALL: Yes sir. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Are there any other questiens frem members ef the <br />audience, any frem the director er the members of the beard? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I have no further questiens, Mr. Chairman. I weuld like <br />to make seme recommendatiens at this time and explain why. Two of these <br />prejects that have been mentioned this morning -- ene that was dis- <br />cussed in detail was the Fruitland Mesa, the ether is the Savery-pothoek <br />were authorized by the United States Cengress in 1964. Five other proj- <br />ectsl including the Dallas Creek were autherized by the Cengress in 1968. <br />That s twelve years age and eight years ago respectively, for the two. <br />sets of projects. Congress directed the Secretary ef the Interier to. <br />censtruct these prejects, and funds were made available almest imme- <br />diately after the passage ef these acts to. prepare the definite plan <br />repert. We have a tetal ef seven uncenstructed prejects here in Western <br />Celerade which Congress directed the Secretary ef Interier to construct. <br />In every case, the initial planning fer those projects goes back fer mere <br />than thirty years. Most of these censervancy districts were erganized <br />and have been taxing their citizens fer over twenty years now. We've <br />had one interminable delay after anether over these many years, some <br />of which were not the fault of the Bureau of Reclamatien. Others I <br />attribute to the Bureau of Reclamatien. I shall explain. <br /> <br />Starting in the early sixties after the Supreme Ceurt decisien in the <br />case ef Arizona versus California, Arizena began a drive in the United <br />States Congress to. secure autherizatien ef the Central Arizena preject. <br />Colorado resisted that authorization until some agreement was reached <br />concerning the development ef the water reseurces of the state ef Cele- <br />rade. For five 1eng and often stormy years the seven states negetiated <br />the preject legislatien. An agreement was finally arrived at ameng the <br />seven states. With this accerd, legislation was intreduced in the <br />Congress and was enacted into law in 1968 as the Colorado River Basin <br />preject Act. <br /> <br />What werried us in the Upper Basin was the testimeny given by the Bureau <br />of Reclamation and the state of Arizona to the effect that the Central <br /> <br />-29- <br />