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 />Mr. Kroeqer: I would hope that the board would. I think it is <br />rather timely because we have a resolution regarding the Rainbow <br />Bridge case, which is before you. The Southwest Water Board passed <br />this hoping that the State Water Board would take some positive action <br />on it. It relates to our situation with the other states intervening. I <br />I think what Larry said really makes us feel all alone as far as <br />Rainbow Bridge is concerned. I don't see how this country can afford <br />the luxury of even messing with a lawsuit on that. I referred to <br />it as being as stupid as India's sacred cows the other day and got <br />away with it in an environmental group meeting. I was closer to <br />home, perhaps I couldn't do that any place. But I would hope that <br />this board urges the Governor and the Upper Basin Commission, and so <br />on, to ask our sister states to not join in fighting us on this <br />situation. I was as astounded as Larry is when I saw Washington, <br />Idaho and Texas and these states that are reclamation states come <br />into this thing. So that is the thrust of the resolution. I would <br />hope that our Water Board would accept this and maybe take whatever <br />action they deem necessary to do something about it. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: What do you suggest? <br /> <br />Mr. Goslin: Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Yes sir, Ival. <br /> <br />Mr. Goslin: May I say something about that? I have looked at the <br />resolution. I would like to see the Water Board endorse the reso- <br />lution. I noticed in there it requests that the Upper Colorado River <br />Commission, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and others do what <br />they can to alleviate this situation with our sister states. I want <br />to assure you and the board that we weren't asleep when we first <br />heard about this issue. We had done considerable to try to get the <br />matter straightened out with some of our sister states. <br /> <br />I first heard about it before the brief was filed with the Supreme <br />Court from a friend of mine who works for the Arkansas Gazette in <br />Little Rock, Arkansas. He called me and told me he had just come <br />from the Attorney General's office and that this brief was being <br />prepared and was going to be filed. He asked for some information I <br />to try to get it headed off and we furnished it to him. There have <br />been sixteen states that have filed on two separate briefs, ten states <br />on one brief, six on another, as Larry mentioned. And among those <br />sixteen states, four of them are reclamation states. I think Larry <br />mentioned those four were Washington, Texas, South Dakota and Idaho. <br />We went to Governor Rampton of Utah. Governor Rampton has written to <br />the governors of all of these sixteen states. As of the present <br /> <br />-34- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.