My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00284
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00284
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:48:13 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:34:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/12/1971
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.
/
120
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. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />"This WCl..S :E!"ilso discussed at great length <br />with the conservationists when the project <br />was started, isn't that correct?" <br /> <br />"Yes. A number of studies were made of <br />the area. The Bureau of Reclamation and the <br />National Park Service asked the Geological <br />Survey for some assistance in the matters, <br />and geological studies have been made. The <br />report was put out by the Geological Survey <br />in 1959. The conclusion of the report was <br />that there appears to be no valid geological <br />reason for fears of damage to Rainbow Bridge <br />as a result of the possible repeated incur- <br />sions and withdrawals of reservoir water in <br />the gorge below the bridge. The report points <br />out there is already water there anyway. There <br />are springs and water seeping out now and noth- <br />ing would occur that is not already occurring <br />naturally. <br /> <br />The report concludes that it is very <br />clear that any possible impairment to the <br />bridge from fluctuating water beneath it would <br />be esthetic rather than geologic or structural. <br />That's what we must argue in the courts as a <br />factual matter, plus the fact that we dispute <br />the standing of the Friends of the Earth to <br />bring suit on this matter in the first instance. <br />We think the Congress has reserved this matter <br />to the states and that only the states can <br />bring an action for the compliance or noncom- <br />pliance with the terms of the two acts which <br />authorize the project." <br /> <br />"Dave, do you have any comments you want <br />to make on this problem?" <br /> <br />IINo, sir." <br /> <br />"Any members of the Board want to ask any <br />questions? <br /> <br />Sam." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.