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 />power market would shift to the Upper Basin <br />states. The Bureau then entered into contracts <br />with the Upper Basin states and with the various <br />entities to deliver power after it was withdrawn <br />from the Lower Basin, particularly the State of <br />Arizona. Now, these entities in Arizona have <br />brought suit to compel the Secretary to keep <br />delivering the power to them, irrespective of <br />the contract. This is litigation which may go on <br />for a considerable period of time. Obviously, <br />the power interests in the Upper Basin have joined <br />issue. They have made motions to intervene in <br />this law suit, claiming that they are the real <br />parties and interests along with the United <br />States. We have another can of worms on our <br />hands as far as long, expensive litigation is m. <br />. ryJ.l <br />concerned. At th1s point, there appears to be no <br />reason for the State of Colorado itself, the <br />state government, to intervene. We think that <br />the power interests in this state and the other <br />Upper Basin states can adequately represent their <br />own interests. We think it is a stab in the <br />back as far as Lower Basin interests are con- <br />cerned. I hasten to add that the people we nego- <br />tiated with in the settlement of the long-stand- <br />ing dispute that led to the passage of the <br />Colorado River Project Act in 1968, the Salt <br />River Association, the Arizona Water Board, have <br />repudiated this attempt by the Arizona Power <br />Authority. The Salt River project people, which <br />project is the biggest water-using entity in <br />Arizona, adopted a resolution opposing the posi- <br />tion of other.1ntercsts in the. State of Arizona. <br />The State Water Board of Arizona has not taken <br />a position except that it would not join in the <br />suit with the Arizona Power Authority. So it <br />is primarily the Arizona Power Authority and <br />local political subdivisions of the State of <br />Arizona which have brought this suit. It could <br />have some vast repercussions. The Bureau of <br />Reclamation is in a bad spot. If the Court <br />orders it to keep delivering to Arizona, the <br />Bureau can't honor its firm contracts with the <br />Upper Basin states. Presumably, the Bureau <br /> <br />-68- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.