Board Meeting 12/03/1981

• Board Meeting Date: 12/3/1981
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

During the discussion, it was made clear that the Board's
intention was to seek construction of both projects, but that
lack of progress on one was not to become a deterrent to
proceeding on the other, The motion was then carried on a
unanimous voice vote.

Returning to discussion of the Fruitland-Mesa project, it I
was clear the sponsors were uncertain about their desires.
Consequently, Mr. Johnston moved that consideration be deferred
until the proponents want to discuss their proposal with the
Board further. Seconded by Mr. Kroeger. The motion carried by a
unanimous voice vote,

Next, the Board considered the Rio Grande Reservoir pro-
posal. Mr, Get z moved that the Board recommend the proj ect to
the General Assembly with financing to consist of $515 thousand
in reimbursable state funds and a $619,5 thousand grant in return
for an agreement with the State Engineer in which the reservoir
company would agree to the operation of the additional storage
capacity for use in Rio Grande Compact Administration, Seconded
by Mr, Kroeger,

In the discussion, Mr. Danielson expressed his belief that
the proposed departure from the CWCB pOlicies and legislative
statutes is warranted in this instance. He was optimistic that a
formal agreement could be executed with the reservoir company to
establish reservoir operation. Mr, John U, Carlson, attorney for
the company, expressed similar optimism, The consensus of the
members was that a nonre~imbursable contribution was justified by
the availability of storage capacity for state use with benefit
to the state and water users in the Rio Grande drainage outside
the area served by the reservoir company. It was the understand-
ing of the Board that the motion clearly was conditioned by
satisfactory execution of an agreement between the company and
the State Engineer. The motion then passed on a unanimous voice
vote,

The Board then took up the matter of projects involving
other types of financial requests, Mr, Vandemoer moved that the
Board not approve or disapprove anything different from estab-
lished policy or statute until the staff has completed its
analysis of and recommendations on economic evaluation
procedures, Seconded by Mr. Furneaux,

In the discussion, Mr, Montgomery suggested that the I
Overland Reservoir sponsors should be prepared to demonstrate the
extent of additional beneficial consumptive use to be gained and
should provide an analysis of water rights involved.
//.;~~.."
/ "
Mr. Johnston suggested that in its analysi~ the staff~should
consider a wide variety of alternatives for pr9Ject financing and

,
,

>"
~

-10-