My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00158
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00158
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:46:02 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:32:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
12/12/1973
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
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.
/
49
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 />meeting in Glenwood Springs in July. The only statement of opposition <br />that was filed was not really a statement of opposition. It was filed <br />by the Colorado River Water Conservation District just to make certain <br />that the decrees when entered would provide that nothing in the decrees <br />would be contrary to the provisions of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project <br />minimum releases. And that language was agreed upon between Mr. <br />Balcomb and me and was included in the referee's rulings. So this is <br />a small milestone. I suspect then we probably will be making appli- <br />cations for other instream uses as soon as the studies have been made <br />in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife people to determine the <br />quantities in various segments of the streams. <br /> <br />As I assume all of you know, there have been petitions for leave to <br />file briefs amicus by the sixteen states in the Rainbow Bridge case. <br />These briefs take the position that the decision of the Court of <br />Appeals in overturning Judge Ritter's decision threatens all of the <br />national parks and monuments and therefore they ought to be permitted <br />to have their say so in the event the Supreme Court grants certiorari. <br />I think some of these states filed these briefs without being adequately <br />advised. I wish Mr. Moore or Mr. Bush were here, but I will try to <br />repeat what John Bush told me. They were both recently at a meeting <br />of the National Association of Attorneys General in New Orleans and <br />attempted in a quiet way to persuade some of the states that have <br />filed to withdraw them. The Attorney General of utah is taking a very <br />active part in trying to get some of the states to reconsider and <br />we would hope that one or two of the states will withdraw their oppo- <br />sition. Some of the states have flatly said they will not. This <br />situation is extremely unfortunate and it makes it more likely that <br />the Supreme Court will grant certiorari in this case, although at <br />least one of the Attorneys General involved takes the position that <br />the states now file so many of these amicus briefs that the Supreme <br />Court doesn't pay much attention to them. I don't know if that is <br />true or not. <br /> <br />One thing that did come out of that was the commitment on the part of <br />all the Attorneys General that they wouldn't file any briefs of this <br />kind without talking to the Attorneys General of the interested states. <br />It is unheard of to me that you jump in and oppose some other state's <br />position without even asking what the case is all about. It has <br />created an additional problem for us and I think there is no question <br />but that it enhances the chances that the plaintiffs in the Rainbow <br />Bridge case may get a review by the Supreme Court. We won't know for <br />a while. <br /> <br />Mr. Goslin furnished me this morning, and I haven't had a chance to <br />read it carefully yet, a decision in the case entitled Chemehueve <br /> <br />-21- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.