My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00188
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00188
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:46:44 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:32:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/14/1962
Description
Minutes
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.
/
54
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 />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. WHITTEN: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. GEISSINGER: <br /> <br />is in the nature of a stipulation by them. <br />themselves, to agree to this particular change. <br />vIe set no particular policy state-wide in this <br />matter." <br /> <br />"I think, though, that Mr. Peterson has a <br />point. As you explain it, as a lawyer I pre- <br />sume you could write a bill that disclaims <br />any precedent, right in the bill, so that it <br />would be known and it was agreed to that this <br />could not be used as a precedent. Is that <br />feasible or desirable?" <br /> <br />"Well, Ben, not being an attorney I'm not <br />able to answer your question from a legal point <br />of view but we do not want to interject any- <br />thing into this particular bill that will have <br />the effect of killing it as far as New Mexico <br />is concerned. We've agreed on it now, as it <br />is, with this stipulation." <br /> <br />"I'm going to ask Mr. Geissinger in a <br />minute to anSWer this legally. We always have <br />in the back of our minds the problem that Mr. <br />Peterson raised and I, for one, certainly <br />would not like to have anybody get a foot in <br />the door because of what we did on a minor <br />amendment to a compact. Mr. Geissinger." <br /> <br />"I might say this, in line with what Mr. <br />\tlhitten said, I think that as the Board members <br />become familiar with the type of compact that <br />we have here, and it's our plan between now <br />and the next meeting to see that you all have <br />copies - actually this isn't a compact, ~tr. <br />Peterson, in the ordinary sense of the word <br />as most of our compacts are with our neigh- <br />boring states. Actually what it is, is <br />allowing Colorado the use of some 25 second <br />feet of water that flows at the mouth of the <br />Canyon Creek gaging station. By virtue of <br />the fact that this stream is in both states <br />it was a problem where you couldn't have the <br />State Engineer of Colorado, through the water <br />commissioners, administering the water; nor <br />could you have the State of New Mexico doing <br />it. It isn't a compact in the sense of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.