My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
South Platte Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
South Platte Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2010 3:41:20 PM
Creation date
6/23/2010 1:06:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
South Platte Steering Committee
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
10/6/1961
Author
South Platte Steering Committee
Title
South Platte Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
steering committee be in a position, and we will <br />need it, to give us some definite guidance as to <br />the service areas to be considered and the priority <br />in which they are considered ?" <br />MR. BARKLEY: "The body of that, Joe, will be contained in <br />the next motion, after we dispose of this one." <br />MR. BARRETT: "OK." <br />MR. GILDERSLEEVE: "You have heard the motion and the second. Is <br />there any further discussion ?" <br />MR. OSBORNE: "I would like to make this observation. In <br />the event that either one or both were built, <br />undoubtedly there will be two separate entities <br />formed for repayment of some sort. It would <br />appear that possibly it's just a simple matter <br />of analysis if you considered the lower site with- <br />out the Two Forks and with. I'd like to see the <br />two comparisons. What you could do on the sites. <br />I don't think it would take the Bureau very long <br />to make that analysis. Do you follow what I'm <br />getting at? we'll say there's a repayment entity <br />that will have to be formed and in all probability <br />there will be two separate districts. One might <br />carry and then the other wouldn't, you see, in <br />repayment so I think that possibly you should <br />sort of provide for that contingency." <br />MR. BARKLEY: "Ceece, let me ask this. I'm not sure that <br />I follow precisely what you mean or maybe I'd <br />better say it this way, that I'm not sure that I <br />follow this as a necessary step to the thing that <br />we are asking for. I think here we are asking for <br />a physical answer as between two sites on the <br />assumption that a reservoir upstream will be built, <br />without here determining who is going to pay for <br />what portion of it or how you are going to allo- <br />cate the benefits and the repayment of the costs. <br />That was the intent of my motion, at least, that <br />we don't try to determine that within this." <br />MR. OSBORNE: "That I'll follow there but in the event - I <br />don't think it would take very much longer after <br />they start, whoever is writing those reports - to <br />make one stand alone without the other. Do you <br />follow me ?" <br />-51- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.