My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02203
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02203
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:13:27 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:12:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/20/1975
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Resolution
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.
/
76
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 />planned as an agricultural development project. But, we are realizing <br />too, that we are facing an energy problem. I am not particularly <br />familiar with that area, except that it is livestock and pasture land, <br />mostly. I am not advised that our coal resources, or even our oil shale <br />extend that far north. But we have to work together to furnish resources <br />for the continuing development of agriculture and also aid the develop- I <br />ment of energy. <br /> <br />Mr. Fetcher; I concur with Mr. Brown that in that particular area, that <br />particular project would be primarily agriculture; that is the way I <br />see it. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton; Mr. Fischer, I take it you envision that any priority <br />comes from Congress, that is what your statement is all about; is that <br />it? <br /> <br />Mr. Fischer: Yes, Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton; Let's look at it realistically, Congress often-times <br />comes back to us, and we don't want to set priorities any more, perhaps. <br />than others would. What do you think should be the function of the <br />Board at such time as members of the Congress, individually or collec- <br />tively as the Colorado delegation ask the Board for suggestions? <br /> <br />Mr. Fischer: I would like to defer to Mr. Aspinall on that. <br /> <br />Mr. Aspinall: Mr. Chairman, there is no reason for the Board to fight <br />over anything like this. These are all projects which were authorized, <br />they are all good projects. If the final report finds they are not <br />good projects, then of course they will have to be dropped, as far as <br />that is concerned. But, if I were a member of the Board. it would seem <br />to me I would ask for consideration for all the projects. You talk <br />about priority of moneys. It is strange, just two years ago, or a year <br />ago the Administration was willing to make certain priorities, and <br />now they are asking for moneys to be spent on all of those projects. <br />Let the Administration follow through with its responsibility, and then, <br />if we can't make it, we abstain. I don't see why we have to take the <br />affirmative. <br /> <br />-Mr. Stapleton: I'm not anxious to take the affirmative, but as you <br />know, we have taken the position that all should be funded, one way or <br />another, depending upon the status. My recollection is that we always <br />get feedback from Congress, "Do you have any priorities", and I say <br />that we should have none, except to say that all the projects should <br />be constructed. <br /> <br />Mr. Astinall: That's what I'm saying. Sure, we are getting our share <br />of Rec amation fund moneys, there is no question about that. Colorado <br />is perhaps getting more than its equitable share because our projects <br />are ready. That is the reason we have been treated, I think, fairly <br />generously at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks; I think a clarification of the staff recommendation is in <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-14- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.