Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-li. !. G '" <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In accordance with. the language in the b~ll <br />the entire cost of Ruedi Dam and Reservdir <br />is considered in the project repayment <br />study, as a part of the Fryingpan- <br />Arkansas project even though, as pointed <br />out hereinbefore it will provide addi- <br />tional regulatory storage to serve future <br />needs. <br /> <br />The hearings before the House Subcommittee on Irrigation and <br />Reclamation on May 15 and 16, 1961 reflect the same general <br />views as set forth above. <br /> <br />Consideraing all the above, i:t;:~i.i'ii%.:!'f:r:i.'rri>)JIJt;;1ttNI" <br />Tu~eti'm'g~~l~gWli!f;e"spBJf5ii.l~ir;l'ttiG"'[s>r,'~ec .. . <br />;wrl'~::~V;:o~ij~'o~fi'a.. .as cos <br /> <br /> <br />The second issue submitted is: <br /> <br />2. What are the equities involved as a <br />result of the above-discussed (your <br />memo) chain of events subsequent to <br />the original basi3 upon which Ruedi <br />Reservoir was authorized, and how <br />should this impact on the position the <br />United States should take in deter- <br />mining who bears the ulti~ate :inan- <br />cial responsibility for the reservoir? <br /> <br />This issue really doesn't involve a ie~ai question and <br />therefore my opinion on the equities as an attorney does not <br />carry any more weight or expertise t~an others who know the <br />facts. Because of this, I will not cor.sider this issue. <br /> <br />The third issue submitted is: <br /> <br />3. Whether or not, under the above-discussed <br />circumstances, the Water S~ppl! Act ran <br />be invoked retroactively. <br /> <br />The Wat",r Supply Act was approved JL:l]' ;, 1958 (72 Stat. <br />319, 43 l',S.C, See 390b). This Act p-o':ided that states or <br /> <br />5 <br />