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 />I <br /> <br />I <br />/ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />333 <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein: "I spent two hours with Senator Johnson. <br />He did not have any criticism of ~his proposed draft. <br />He emphasized the desirability of including Cross Mountain. <br />Glen Canyon is a reservoir primarily for the benefit of~he <br />lower basin. My impression is that he believes that if <br />Glen Canyon is included, some concession should be sought <br />from the lower basin. The matter should be presented to <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Now, I understand <br />that the situation is: such that this proposal mayor may <br />not be well received and you may not want to act on it <br />promptly. There is only one comment that I wish to make. <br />It. is apparent from statements made at the meeting of <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board and reports in the <br />past that if'the policies adopted by the Water Conservation <br />Board are urged upon Congress in the hearings, there are <br />certain sections in the State that will oppose the Bill. <br />I am no expert on public relations with Congress or the <br />United States Government, but I am thoroughly convinced <br />that if the State of Colorado is divided and voices <br />their. objections, then the chances of securing the <br />legislation desired are practically nil." . <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey: "Does anyone have any questions? Jean, under <br />this proposed supplemental recommendation, are we <br />permitted to construct the large Curecanti?" <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein: "It would be perfectly proper in a <br />Bill to include Curecanti, on condition that it be <br />approved by the official Colorado agency which is in <br />charge of such matters. In a Bill the selection of a <br />unit should be made subject to Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board approval." <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: "I have been a little concerned. That is a <br />situation that I don't like. That is one reason why I <br />voted to consider each paragraph of the Conference <br />Committee's recommendations and findings separately. <br />There was a small modification in the recommendation of the <br />Curecanti and it appeared to me it might not be a whole- <br />hearted recommendation. From my point of view, that is <br />still my position. I don't want to do anything that kicks <br />Curecanti around any more. Curecanti has been approved with <br />a little different language." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.