Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(. <br />( <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- 8 - <br /> <br />studies completed L~ the very near future, and that no further federally <br />financed transmountain diversions should be made ryithout the completion <br />of such investigations." <br /> <br />At the meeting of the Colorado Vater Conservation Board on February 22, <br />1951, when the revisE!d report of the Policy and Review Committee, including <br />revised "Operating Principles" for this project, \7as approved by the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board, the Board unanimously approved two motions which <br />provided that the resolutions, above mentioned and partially quoted, sub- <br />mitted by the Colorado RiverUater Conservation District and the Soutm7estern <br />Water Conservation District be accepted and approved as a policy of the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board. <br /> <br />9. Paragraph 68 commencing on Page 23 in about the middle thereof states: <br />"The proposed basic rate of ;';3.60 per acre-foot at the Pueblo Reservoir has <br />been determined to be ,nthin the payment capacity of the ~Tater users." It is <br />respectfully requested that such proposed charge should not c~nstitute either <br />a maximum or a minimum charge nor should it indicate a unifor.n charge or indi- <br />cate where-\"rater ,nll be used or TThether or not consideration in fixing charges <br />can be given to return flo17S from such use. The fiCure is i-urely an esti- <br />mated averaee charGe per acre-foot and the district in allocating such ,Tater <br />should be allrn7ed complete latitude in connection thereryith. <br /> <br />10. Paragraph 63 as contained on Page 24 has the follovring sentence ~ "The <br />district 1~ould assuree res,-;msibility for delivery of irrigation YTaterr" This <br />responsibility is certain:y not that of the United States, but neither should <br />the district be responsiole for patrolling every ditch. If water is turned <br />out from the Reservoir, it is icmediately subject to the control of the State <br />water officials, who should be advised of such rights in vTater and \"Tho are <br />charged with the responsibility of deli'Jering the same to the correct ditch" <br />It is contemplated that each ditch will do its o\"rn policing. <br /> <br />11. Attention is directed to Paragraph 68 on Page 24 and the sentence <br />reading "This district or possibJy- another entity would contract with the <br />government for federal construction of the specific municipal water system. . ." <br />It is contemplated that a proper repayment entity under Colorado laws such <br />as a metropolitan water district may be created for this particular purpose <br />or that a joint contract executed between the various municipalities utilizing <br />this feature will be executed and the project's authorization should be <br />sufficiently broad to authorize any such contract deemed desirable. <br /> <br />12. Page 24 in the tabulation on function and source of revenue contains <br />the follO\'ring: <br /> <br />District tax (0132 million at 1 mill ~~us <br />10% . . . " . . , . . . D . . . . . . " . . . . 0119,000 <br /> <br />Attention is directo~ to the fact that under Colorado la\"T, three possible <br />rates are in existence; one-half of one mill, being the rate prior to delivery <br />