My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00306
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:48:23 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:35:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/26/1999
Description
Union Park Status Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />July 23, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />The opposition is attempting to rely upon the Aspinall Unit to defeat the Union Park Project in <br />the litigation, The Aspinall Unit was built under the CRSP A to assist in the development of the <br />Upper Basin states' apportionment under the Compact. The U.S. and the State are now asserting <br />that the U.S. can prevent all transbasin diversions based upon the Aspinall Unit, which is directly <br />contrary to the purpose of CRSPA. Further, it severely limits the ability of Colorado to use its <br />Compact apportionment. <br /> <br />We believe that the State's position is not in accord with the Compact, CRSPA or the State's best <br />interests. We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss these issues with CWCB. <br /> <br />3. Possible Settlement of the Litigation. <br /> <br />We have met with the State and the U.S. several times, and have provided detailed settlement <br />proposals to attempt to address all stated concerns, as well as concerns voiced by other West <br />Slope opposition. We have never received any written reply from the State, and the only written <br />reply from the U.S. was a brief letter in which it was stated that the U.S. had no interest in <br />settling the litigation. We can make this correspondence available to the Board if you would like <br />to review it. <br /> <br />We believe that CWCB could facilitate discussions of the important Project. Arapahoe County <br />would appreciate CWCB reviewing this case on its merits. We would be willing to meet at your <br />convenience. <br /> <br />Thank you very much for your consideration. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~,}?~y <br /> <br />Marie Mackenzie <br />Arapahoe County Commissioner <br /> <br />Enclosure <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.