My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00100
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00100
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:44:48 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:31:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/11/1960
Description
Minutes
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 />Chama River which is a tributary of the Rio <br />Grande) 'Colorado hereby consents to the con- <br />struction of said works and the diversion of <br />waters from the San Juan River or" tributaries <br />thereof into the Rio Grande in New Mexico <br />provided the present and prospective uses of <br />water in Colorado by other diversions from <br />the San Juan River or its tributaries are <br />protected. ' <br /> <br />Now in affect we think we are losing <br />what protection we would have under the <br />Upper Colorado River Compact. We think we <br />are throwing away the protection we have in <br />the Rio Grande clause and accepting, by an <br />agreement, a provision to share shortages <br />that perhaps we wouldn't be saddled with <br />otherwise. What we have asked to be written <br />into this legislation is the principle that <br />we feel is the law. New Mexico disagrees <br />with us. They don't think it is. We are <br />trying to settle this argument now before <br />the projects are authorized. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Now then, I proposed to Mr. Sparks this <br />morning that if this Board was going to take <br />action on the bill, that we delete the entire <br />paragraph. Take out subparagraph (a"). We <br />don't care about subparagraph (b). Also take <br />out subparagraph (c). At least the state <br />would not be taking a position that we think <br />would be damaging to our section of the coun- <br />try. We think we would have some protection <br />from these other things I have mentioned. <br /> <br />Now then, Mr. Sparks has just told you <br />the possibility of action on this bill is <br />nil in'this session of the Congress. We <br />agree with that. Congressman Aspinall has <br />said so. We might suggest that this Board <br />table the matter, inspecting the effects of <br />this provision on the waters of the Animas <br />River and San Juan. Mr. Sparks agreed that <br />perhaps ~.,e"needed'to do some further study to <br />determine when New Mexico has reached its <br />allocation of water. At what time during the <br />historical flow of the river does New Mexico <br />get it? Until those studies are made and <br />until we are absolutely certain of the effects <br />of these provisions, we think that this Board <br />would be doing a disservice to southwestern <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.