Laserfiche WebLink
<br />project with: the $1 million that was authorized in Senate Bill 35 last <br />year which, if Senate Bill 69 is acceptable,. will make funds available, <br />I believe, in 1979. Is that right Larry? Is that 1979 if we get the <br />$3 million? <br /> <br />,I <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Yes, that is correct. <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: If we get those funds, we will be able to proceed with <br />the construction possibly even this coming summer, using the funds <br />from the private tax-free bond market to finance the project rather <br />than going to the.Smal1 Projects Loan through the Bureau of Recla- <br />mation. If we go that route, we.are looking at a two-year delay and <br />we just can't afford it. I think the project is going to go ahead. <br /> <br />MR. ~OEGER: Good, John. Dave, you didn't finish your report, did <br />you? <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: No, sir. Members of the board, I will just very briefly <br />run down where We stand on some of the things. <br /> <br />I filed all of the streamflow applications that you approved during <br />1977 during the month of December. I held off until that time because <br />in March of 1977, as I reported to the board,.I sent a letter and <br />proposed form to Justice Groves of the Supreme Court and asked that he <br />circulate the same to the seven water judges. There has been some <br />dissatisfaction from water users and the State Engineer that the three <br />forms that previously had been approved did not fit the requirements of <br />instream flow and in-lake capacity. In December, after some writing <br />back and forth.apparent1y between Judge Groves and the water judges, <br />the form was approved by Judge Groves and sent out to the water judges <br />for us. I waited until December so I could use that form and I have, <br />in fact, submitted all. three hundred and some applications that you <br />approved last year on that form. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Speaking of minimum streamflows, this board's.brief is due in Water <br />Division 5 on approximately January 31 this month in the case in which <br />the Colorado River District is contending that Senate Bill 97 is un- <br />constitutional. The district will then have another thirty days in <br />which to reply to our answer brief. At that time, the legal question <br />on which we have all been waiting will be submitted to the. District <br />Court judge for decision. I am certain that the side that does not <br />prevail will appeal that promptly to the Supreme Court. I would <br />anticipate that we will have it before the Supreme Court by sometime <br />later this year. <br /> <br />~ am in the process of preparing the board's entry.of appearance. If <br />you will recall, at the last board meeting I was directed to enter our <br /> <br />.,53- <br />