WSP06228 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Visitor's Observation Enclosure - Mt. Elbert Pumped.Storage Powerplant ANNUAL BUDGET ]n accordance with Colorado State Statutes, the members of the Board of Directors, working through their respective Committees and the Staff, carefully prepared a well defined Proposed Budget for 1976, based upon actual expenditures in previous years, anticipated requirements for the coming year, and estimated income. Copies of the Proposed Budget were then widely distributed throughout the District, and Legal Notices published in the newspapers of gen- eral circulation in the nine Counties in advance of the Official Budget Hearing. The Formal Hearing was held September 18, 1975, at 1:30 p.m. at the District Offices, 905 Highway 50 West, Pueblo, Colorado. WATER LITIGATION AND LEGISLATION The members of the Board of Directors, and Staff, carefully monitor all water related legislation intro- duced into the Congress of the United States, the Colo- rado General Assembly and in various Federal, State and Local Agendes, to evaluate the impact on Water Management Programs within the District. There were very few Water Bills introduced in the 1975 Session of the Colorado General Assembly, and most of the action touk place in the Congress of the United States and before the Environmental Protection Agency. On October 18, 1'J72, the Congress of the United States passed Public Law 92-500, which, if fully implemented, would impose extremely severe hardships on irrigated agriculture and could greatly reduce the number of small farms in the United States, particularly in the semi-arid West. The District attended many meetings sponsored by the EP,A and other Water Agencies, and filed several statements in opposition to aspects of 92-500. 19 , '.;..;" o o """" 00 c.o --J Each month the members of the Board carefully review all Water Applications filed in Divisions 2 and 5, to determine their impact on the decrees held by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Dis- trict, and on the Operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Legal Counsel is authorized to retain necessary Engineering Consultants to evaluate those Applications which are of greatest concern, and then the Board determines whether or not to intervene in the Case. During the year the District, through its Legal Counsel, was involved in a number of Cases, both at the Water Court and State Supreme Court levels, and it is the hope of the Board, and Legal Counsel. that decisions rendered by these several Courts will establish neces. sary guidelines to minimize future litigation. Legal Counsel for the District was successful in all Cases in which the District was a litigant, except for the De- claratory Judgment Case, and the Directors feel confi- dent the decisions will help in the development of long- range Water Management Programs in the Valley and in the State. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN As was mentioned in the "Legislation and Litiga- tion Section," in 1972 the Congress of the United States passed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (92.500), and during 1975 Engineers from the Firm of URS.Ken R. White Company de- voted a great deal of time studying the Arkansas River from its headwaters to the Kansas State line, excluding the Metropolitan area of Pueblo and Colorado Springs, as those were to be studied under separate 208 studies. Representatives from the Engineering Firm met month- ly with the Board of Directors of the District to present updated material, and requesting observations and comments from the District. The Report was filed with the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission late in 1975, and the majority of the recommendations were adopted, setting forth criteria for the many dif- ferent sections of the Arkansas River. The six-volume Report sets out a great deal of statistical information which will be of great value to the various Cities, Towns, Industries, Mines and Agricultural Areas, reo garding their existing sewage treatment facilities as related to the new standards. The Reports make rec- ommendations as to improvements or enlargements which will have to be made, and which alert the Officials of the entities as to the requirements well in advance. , ..' C. H. HOPER STUDY In 1974, representatives from the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the District, testified be. fore the Congress of the United States in support of the Reauthorization of the Project. When the Project was authorized in August 1962 cost estimates were 20 -~:'~"-":-"'r;;..7.":'"':;:'-.":: " " "" "