My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02386
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02386
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:15:04 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:14:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/8/1972
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
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.
/
100
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: <br /> <br />"All in favor 'aye' - opposed. 'no.' It is <br />carried unanimously. (See Appendix C) . <br /> <br />Agenda item no. 8 is the attorney's report. <br />and he is not here and hasn't submitted a report. <br /> <br />We will skip on over to nine which is the <br />director's report. Do you have additional items <br />today. Larry?" . <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />"I have and none of them are good. I think <br />all of us thought a few years ago that we had <br />some of the major problems behind. I'll go <br />through a few of the items that are creating <br />some serious problems and to which solutions are <br />still to be found. <br /> <br />The first is the fact that now the Arizona <br />Power Authority and a number of small irrigation <br />districts in Arizona have now brought suit in <br />the Federal Court against the Secretary of the <br />Interior concerning the power allocation from <br />the Colorado River Storage Project. The board <br />will remember we went through some very serious <br />controversies eight or nine years ago concerning <br />the power output from these dams. We had a <br />dispute with the private utility companies con- <br />cerning the transmission lines. We also had a, <br />major dispute concerning customers for the proj- <br />ect power. We argued that this was an Upper <br />Basin project and that the principal marketing <br />area must be the Upper Basin. The Lower Basin <br />was in a position to take all of the power. The <br />problem was when we started the power operation <br />there was not a sufficient market in the Upper <br />Basin to at that time take all of the power: but <br />at the present time. the Upper Basin can use all <br />of the power. We have many cities. Colorado <br />Springs. Lamar. Fort COllins. Loveland. Delta, <br />and others which have municipal plants that want <br />to acquire all of that power they can. those <br />together with the REA activities. In the interim <br />period, the Secretary entered into short-term <br />contracts with people in the Lower Basin. Those <br />contracts recite that when they terminated. the <br /> <br />-67- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.