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 />establish minimum flows for environmental purposes over there. This <br />may be a matter of interstate controversy, and we may have to take it <br />into the federal courts, unless we can get some resolution of that <br />problem that New Mexico will agree to and that our local people can <br />live with. In any event, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the I <br />Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife are working on that problem <br />along with our staff. So I would say be early summer in any event <br />that we should schedule a meeting in Durango or in that area to dis- <br />cuss that problem. It is a major problem. This involves an area <br />many times greater than the Fryingpan. , <br /> <br />Ray Moses also mentioned the matter of intervention by other states. <br />We were appalled that these other states jumped into this suit. <br />There were about ten of them originating primarily out of New York <br />and Florida. And what the hell business is it of their's we know <br />not. They did not even have the common courtesy to contact the state <br />of Colorado before they jumped into the Rainbow lawsuit. And what <br />was more discouraging to us, some of the reclamation states got into <br />it also, Idaho, Washington, and Texas, all opposing our position in <br />Colorado. Again. without notifying us or even having the common <br />courtesy to ask us what the problem was all about. How many of those <br />have actually filed briefs now I am not advised. There were ten <br />states which were contemplating filing briefs, and some of those <br />have been filed requesting the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to <br />overturn the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals. It came about <br />in such a hurry that there was almost nothing we could do about it. <br />The decision was made and the briefs were circulated and filed <br />before we knew anything about it. I think the deadline - When is it <br />IvaI? It is this month? <br /> <br />Mr. Goslin: I believe it is the 18th now, Larry. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: We are filing our brief, of course. And the state of <br />Utah also. But what it amounts to, these other states have now <br />decided to take a position contrary to Utah and Colorado. It is dis- <br />couraging and it's almost unbelievable as to what has happened. I <br />think we will have to take a hard look at what is going on in those <br />states in the future and see if we can return the favor. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Thank you. Any questions of the director? <br /> <br />~tr. Berthelson: Larry, on the filing on the Fryingpan there was some <br />talk that this law would be contested as to its constitutionality. <br />Apparently there is nobody that is going to contest it. <br /> <br />-32- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.