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 />time, I think Idaho is going to withdraw or modify its position <br />considerably over what was in that brief. I don't know exactly how <br />you withdraw from a petition before the Supreme Court. There must <br />be some way of doing it. <br /> <br />I contacted the water people in a number of these other states by <br />telephone and I found in almost every instance that these briefs were <br />filed by the Attorney General of the states as a result of some of <br />our friends from the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, and so on, <br />going to them, selling them a bill of goods. They didn't even have, <br />as Larry called.'it, the common courtesy to call some of us in the <br />affected states and find out what the effect of the Rainbow Bridge <br />lawsuit was. They bought the bill of goods of the environmentalists. <br />They went on the briefs that had been prepared for them. Just like <br />Larry, I resent it very much. We have a real feud going in Texas <br />over it. The water people in Te~as went to the Attorney General s <br />office and they denied doing anything about it. We shouldn't have <br />let this thing happen. I don't know how we could have prevented it, <br />but it has happened. I don't know what the effect of it is going to <br />be. I am worried just like Ray Moses was this morning. I think we <br />have at least a fifty percent chance of the Supreme Court not granting <br />certiorari in this case, but with sixteen states coming into the case <br />now asking the Supreme Court to hear it, I am just a little bit <br />worried about what this effect may have. <br /> <br />I highly approve of the tenure of the resolution from the Southwest <br />Board. I think it is in the right spirit. I would like to see this <br />board endorse it. <br /> <br />Mr. Cornelius: Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Yes, sir. <br /> <br />Mr. Cornelius: I move that we endorse the resolution presented by <br />the Southwest Board. <br /> <br />Mr. Williams: I will second it. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: It has been regularly moved and seconded. Any further <br />discussion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying <br />"aye" - opposed, "no." This motion is carried. (See Appendix B). <br />You have one other resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeqer: IvaI, we <br />aware of what Governor <br />that he has taken this <br /> <br />took this action on the 5th <br />Rampton of Utah was doing. <br />action. I am interested in <br /> <br />we were <br />very pleased <br />problems and <br /> <br />before <br />We are <br />Te~as <br /> <br />-35- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.