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 />..L.........v <br /> <br />As I analyze it, those are the fears <br />that are expressed and also as I analyze it, <br />the fears expressed are quite probably ground- <br />less. There is, perhaps, some risk involved. <br />But I want to say this from the standpoint of <br />the Colorado River Water qonservation District, <br />that it is my opinion - nqw I'm sure the Board <br />would concur in that opinion - that some very, <br />very compelling, tangible reason should exist <br />why this Board should not approve this bill in <br />its present form. Because as matters stand <br />now, this controversy is hamstringing the <br />Curecanti development and it will block other <br />participating projects developments nobody <br />knows for how many years to come. <br /> <br />Now, as I said earlier, I don't like the <br />tactics whereby this impasse was brought . <br />about but we are faced with it. I don't know <br />whether the damage has been done to the ex- <br />tent that even if this matter were adjusted <br />along these lines, the Curecanti appropria- <br />tioh would still pass this year. I'don't <br />know. I don't know that anyone knows~ I <br />think there is a possibility that it would. <br /> <br />I want you members of the Board and the <br />members of the Southwestern Board, ~. Eakes <br />and ~. Jex, to understand that my reaction <br />to this thing is not based upon any policy of <br />defeatism. If I felt that there were a sub- <br />stantial conflict of interests here I would <br />not for one moment back up in supporting the <br />Southwestern Water Conservation District <br />Board's position, but I don't believe there <br />is. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I want to add this, Mr. Sparks and ~. <br />Chairman. If anybody around this table thinks <br />that this, or any other legislation that you <br />can draw up and get passed, is going to settle <br />every question that will ever come up on the <br />San Juan and Animas Rivers, you are nuts. Just <br />like Hoover told the Commissioners that drew up <br />the Colorado River Compact, 'If you think we <br />are going to settle all these problems in this <br />Compact, you ~re crazy. YoU had just as well <br />go home. We won't'; There will be litigations <br />over it and there will be questions to be <br />answered'. So I feel, and I have spent quite <br />a bit of time studying the Upper Colorado River <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.