My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00146
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00146
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:45:39 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:32:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
12/30/1953
Description
Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
25
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 />,.- ,. . 3. .trf, : <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey: "We have spent a lot of time talking about <br />the Western Slope. It seems to me there is small chance <br />of their people coming to an agreement within a period of two <br />or three weeks. I wonder if there is anything Denver might <br />do. Is there a possible solution looking at the Denver end <br />of it?" <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher: "There is no way of reaching an agreement at the <br />present time." <br /> <br />Mr. Petry: "When we appeared at Cheyenne we presented our <br />need for the water and asked we be included in the storage <br />.bill, an action necessitating the Colorado Conference <br />Committee. Throughout our appearances before the State <br />Water Board, when we met again here in Denver, we presented <br />why we needed the water, with factual information showing <br />our use and the growth of Denver. As I recall, no one <br />dissented in that procedure and the Committee was appointed. <br />The engineer that was selected was a man that was unanimously <br />agreed upon by the Conference Committee. Mr. Hill was <br />approved by the Western Slope. I did not know very much about <br />it. I did not know Mr. Hill, and I served to the best of my <br />ability after that firm gentleman was approved. I read all <br />information forwarded to us and I acted in good faith and I <br />am still willing to do more in the same field. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"You ask what Denver's position is in this. We certainly <br />feel that the condition of the Western Slope could be a little <br />more definite. I can't understand why everything we have <br />done is so wrong. It has been said the Hill report is <br />valueless; that it was a premature decision. All those things <br />as you know, are not so. We considered the Hill report and <br />it was read by all. It was distributed allover the State. <br />The University of Colorado report, was said, was never <br />submitted t.o the Committee. That is false. The University <br />of Colorado report was more or less side-lined. Denver's <br />position is very clear in what we are trying to do. We are <br />not asking for anything that has not been justified by the <br />engineering report. Because of the action that apparently <br />the Western Slope feels has hurt them, they are not now <br />cooperating with us. The decision made by this Board and <br />what we do and how we intend to operate will be nil, unless <br />we go together to Congress. Gentlemen, it effects the <br />Western Slope too. If there is any opposition, the Western <br />Slope will be hurt just as badly as Denver. There must be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.