BOARD02203

• Board Meeting Date: 3/20/1975
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

First, with respect to the Savery-Pot Hook Project, it is a multi-state
project, encompassing both Colorado and Wyoming. Two weeks ago the
Colorado Board, which is part of the Conservancy District in Colorado
gave its final approval to the repayment contract with the Bureau, it
has gone to the Bureau and is in process now. I am advised that probably
the Savery Conservancy District in Wyoming this week gave its approval I
also to the repayment contract. So, it should be on the way.toreso-
lution, approving it, should be on the way to the Bureau at this time.
We are waiting for a quorum by the Wyoming legislature, so they can take
action.

As was already indicated by Mr. Fischer and Congressman Aspinall, the
Savery Project is primarily an agricultural project. With the rapidly
changing circumstances, there is, as I recall, a provision in the
repayment contract subject to future needs. Our contract was patterned
after the Fruitland Mesa, and I think that is basically in all repay-
ment contracts, subject to the supervisor, which :would be the Secretary
of the Interior, indicating there might be some change, although I
don't think at this time there is any contemplated.

There was, what comes to my mind, in the Wyoming oil shale tract, which
is maybe closer to the Snake River than any other water source; but as
I understand it the contemplated water supply for the Wyoming oil shale
tract comes from the Northern Project on the Green River. But, as you
know, there were no bids submitted to the Department of Interior for
the Wyoming tract. There is some other coal activity in the Headwater
that probably could be involved in the changes.

But, as I say, the President's budget, as I understand, has $2,230,000
for the start of construction of the Savery-Pot Hook Project in this
fiscal year's budget, and we most urgently request that this Board and
the Congressional Delegation work to see that these funds are appro-
\ priated for the Savery-Pot Hook Project.

As you well know, it has been our dead-center grievance with the Office
of Management and Budget since 1970, I believe, and we would like the
project going ahead. As we testified before, the additional authority
for new lands would be under construction, supplemental water for
existing lands would contribute greatly to the production of the live-
stock industry in Northwestern Colorado for the benefit of the world
food crisis.

I would say this concludes my remarks, and I am glad to see that the
Chairman has allowed the record to stay open. We will present a
written statement to the Board for your records of these proceedings.

If you would like to ask questions with regard to Savery-Pot Hook, I
would be glad to do that, and then go on to Lower Yampa.

Mr. Sta~leton: Are there any questions on Savery-Pot Hook by the Board
members. If not, will you proceed, then, with the Lower Yampa Project.

Mr. Pughe: The Lower Yampa Project as conceived by the Bureau is

I

-30-