My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00196
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00196
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:46:53 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:33:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/29/1955
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.
/
20
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 />'"3"38 <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: "I would like to move that the Director of <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board set <br />up a meeting during the month of December-- <br />some date that would be agreeable with most <br />parties concerned--on the subject of the <br />Denver conflict with the Parshall Project, <br />and that, in addition' to the City and <br />County of Denver, the Middle Park Water <br />Conservancy District and the Colorado River <br />Water Conservation District be advised and <br />invited to attend that meeting." . <br /> <br />MR. MEEK: <br />MR. BAILEY: <br />MR. PETRY: <br /> <br />"I second the motion." <br /> <br />"Any furth~r comments?" <br /> <br />"Before you set up a date you might give us a <br />chance to advise Mr. Crawford on how long it <br />would be before we could give you more <br />information on that. We have farmed part of <br />it out to outside engineering." <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: "Speaking on the motion, I think there would <br />probably have to be more than one meetin~ <br />concerning this subject, even though there is <br />a meeting in December." <br /> <br />On vote being taken, the motion was carried unanimously. <br /> <br />MR. CRAWFORD: "With regard to the other projects -mentioned <br />under Item 3, we find that the planning section <br />in-Salt Lake City is anxious to make a'study of <br />the Bostwick Project. It shows up pretty well <br />on reconnaissance. In reference to Eagle Divide, <br />there does not seem to be muc~ of a demand to <br />go ahead with that project. There is somewhat <br />the same feeling with regard to Battlement Mesa. <br />Bostwick, on account of its promise of <br />feasibility, is really in a preferred position. <br />There has been no meeting on this--just a <br />telephone conversation." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.