Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. STAPLETON: If this were a court of law, I would ask that that be <br />stricken from the record. (Laughter.) <br /> <br />MR. GOSLIN: I would ask that it be put back. <br /> <br />(Laughter. ) <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I think we must attack the problem. <br />the President determine our future for us. A way <br />is by revising the definite plan report. <br /> <br />We simply can't let <br />to attack the problem <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: There are opportunities for municipal and. industrial water <br />(coal development)- in both of- these projects. If that is wha~ the <br />President wants, perhaps we can accommodate h~m. <br /> <br />We pointed this' out to the environmentalists who oppose these projects. <br />We pointed it out to them many ways last year--that, if the waters <br />planned for these projects are. used in some other manner, the adverse <br />environmental' impact will be very much greater than what we had pJanned <br />for these two projects. But when you try to talk to some e.nviron.-"-~ <br />mentalists, you-might as well. talk to that wall. They are forcing us <br />into a position where we have to come up with a revised plan which will <br />not be nearly as attractive from an environmental- viewpoint. .This is <br />true with the water resources in the .sta~e of Colorftdo generally. -We <br />are going to use them, but it is a question of how we u~e them. Our <br />long and carefully laid plans to preserve a substantial agricultural <br />industry in this state may-have ~o give way to other considerations. <br />At' least,' we must -take a hand in continuing to plan our own destiny'. <br />The best way to do it at this time for these two projects is to 190k <br />at possible revisions of the definite plan reports to th~ end that we <br />can come up with more favorable benefit-cost ratios. <br /> <br />The benefit-cost ratios for both of these projects were favorftble at <br />the t;ime they were authorized and, for some years. after that. But . <br />because of the continuing rule change~,- which are designed for the sole <br />purpose of defeating reclamation' projects, the current benefit-cost <br />ratio is no longer favorable. c' 'In- other, words" the costs keep increas- <br />ing; but the benefits do not keep pace accordingly. This is a trap <br />that has ensnared us, and it .has. been deliberat.e at the national-level, <br />but it pid not start with the present administration. The process <br />started under President Nixon. <br /> <br />It seems to me that we have to do something. We can't just sit here <br />without taking some action on our own. This is ,the reason we-proposed <br />that at least $75,000 be appropriated to loo~ at a possible revision of <br />the definite plan reports for those two projects. <br /> <br />I see in the paper that Senator Haskell has requested $100,000, for the I <br />two projects. I think that is greatly to his credit, and I am sure <br />this board is not going to quarrel with any greater amounts that we <br />can get. I think in some cases-the Congressional Delegation may want <br />to go further ~han what this board recommends. <br /> <br />We set forth conservative figures that we think are realist~c. If <br />they can be increased, we would like to see them i~creased. That. is <br />my explanation of those two projects. <br /> <br />-4- <br />