Laserfiche WebLink
<br />resources of the Weminuche in any way, shape, or form. It isn't <br />being assumed to take the position with respect to the Eagle-Gore <br />or the Eagle-Piney areas which also are somewhat controversial in <br />terms of efforts to enlarge those areas by the environmentalist <br />groups throughout the state. I don't think anyone has a better <br />claim or a longer claim to dedication to environmental concepts I <br />than I have. I was as influential as any individual in the adoption <br />of the primitive bill. I happened to be around Washington at that <br />particular time. <br /> <br />There is nothing about anything proposed by us which is contrary to <br />sound environmental development in this area. There is, however, a <br />deep belief on our part that this water has a prior demand upon it <br />in the public interest for the purposes of developing power and <br />development of the oil shale and coal resources of the western slope. <br />And I respectfully submit that this board should not take the posi- <br />tion adverse to the Meadows or as a matter of fact, I don't understand <br />why the board takes the position with respect to the matter in any <br />way, shape, or form, anymore that it would take a position with <br />respect to the many other Wilderness areas which now are or will be <br />considered by the board. <br /> <br />I would like to reiterate what I said in the opening; to wit, that I <br />was not the first of counsel in this matter or in the litigation. <br />Judge John Barnard was and took an active role and he is here today <br />and it is my suggestion that if he feels or inclined, that he be <br />given an opportunity to express his views. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Mr. Brannan, I think there will be some questions from <br />the board and I would like to start out. I don't think this board <br />wants to take sides between you and the River District. It is my <br />understanding, and I would like Mr. Balcornb and you to clarify this, <br />that if the resolution is passed in accordance with agenda item No.3, <br />if that be the board's desire, that neither project will be feasible. <br />Is that correct? <br /> <br />Mr. Brannan: That would kill both projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: All right, I want that understood. Now I have some .1 <br />reservations about why we should be killing either one of the proj- <br />ects or why we should enter into it at all. But if we go that route, <br />then what is your belief as to the President being able to exclude <br />an area that is in Wilderness from the Wilderness area in the future? <br />DO you think that is a feasible recourse? <br /> <br />Mr. Brannan: Well, I can only quote a great authority on the subject <br />who spoke at the hearings here in Denver before Senators Haskell and <br /> <br />-8- <br />