My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00586
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00586
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:52:11 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:41:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
4/8/1959
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.
/
103
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 />1451 <br /> <br />to one extent. The 1951 resolution merely <br />required a determination of the amount of <br />water required for use in western Colorado <br />before there could be approval of further <br />transmountain diversions. This resolution <br />adds the obvious words 'and protected'. It <br />requires the determination of the amount of <br />water we need and the protection of our right <br />to use that amount of water, which is merely <br />sensible. As I said earlier, why pass a re- <br />solution that says you have got to determine <br />how much water we need and then in effect say <br />'all right, boys, here it is, come and get it'. <br /> <br />Those comments, I think, are necessary <br />to be made at this time to this Board because <br />they are the present position of the Board <br />of Directors of the Colorado River Water Con- <br />servation District. I think there should be <br />no misunderstanding as to what that Board of <br />Directors will do with this Fryingpan thing <br />unless that resolution is passed." <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: "John, may I ask this question. You <br />heard the two suggested modifications by our <br />Director. Does your Board have any objection <br />to modifications along that line?" <br /> <br />MR. BARNARD, SR.: "I would want to have those modifications <br />spelled out a little more specifically." <br /> <br />r~. STAPLETON: "I would too. I am talking in general <br />terms. I think we are going to have to get <br />these modifications written out by our attor- <br />ney and Director before we can finally con- <br />sider, but I would like to ask, at this <br />juncture, does the position of your Board <br />say that this resolution has to be passed <br />in its identical phraseology here?" <br /> <br />~ffi. BARNARD, SR.: "That subject was discussed, Mr. Staple- <br />ton, the exact wording, and, as I recall it, <br />it was left in this shap~,and the letter so <br />states 'to the following effect'; does it not?" <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: "Yes, that's what it says." <br /> <br />~ffi. BARNARD, SR.: "Now, I never drew a pleading or a document <br />in my life that some other lawyer couldn't <br />come along and criticize, and we recognized <br />that perhaps some change in the exact wording <br />might be suggested which would not be objec- <br />tionable to us. I would say that any change <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.