My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00647
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00647
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:52:46 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:42:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
8/15/1973
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.
/
30
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 />the national energy production of the United States. We consider <br />that as far as the state of Colorado is concerned, the greatest <br />potential development in the state is in the White River basin. That <br />will require a great amount of water resources. What we are faced <br />with was a decision as to whether or not the state should encourage <br />the removal of water from the White River in view of the tremendous <br />potential development in that area. The answer was very simple. We <br />concluded that it would be a foolish state policy to encourage the <br />removal of water from the White River. <br /> <br />"Mr._Stapleton: This is what we are voting on now? <br /> <br />Mr: Sparks: That's right. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: It doesn't look like that to me at all. I didn't <br />focus on that. That is why I asked the question, What we ought to do? <br />If that's what we are going to do, we ought to have some discussion <br />about that. I thought what we were doing is just considering first <br />of,all the Flat Tops Wilderness area and thell we get another change <br />which is voluntary on our part. Now we say w e get into a <br />discussion of whether or not the White River should be diverted into <br />the Colorado River or not. And I didn't understand that to be an <br />agenda item at all. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: I think this was as clear as it could be put in our <br />memorandum which went out to the board. We pointed out these facts <br />that we thought it was a serious mistake on the part of the state of <br />Colorado to encourage and permit the exportation of water from the <br />White River. We went into these facts in that memorandum and that <br />was part and parcel of it. And that is a simple decision. It <br />doesn't involve personalities or companies. Should the state encour- <br />age the taking of water from the White River, or should the state <br />encourage the use of the water of the White River within the basin, <br />bearing in mind that there are two other things that are extremely <br />'1mportant to this decision? The White River is a small river. It <br />produces on the average only about a half a million acre-feet at <br />the state line. It traverses the Northern Ute Indian reservation. <br />It is the only source of water to that reservation. The federal <br />government has indicated that it will make substantial claims for <br />the Northern Ute Indian reservation. The state of Utah has an <br />interest in the river. In 1969, their Governor wrote to Governor <br />Love requesting that an interstate compact be entered into on the <br />White River. The oil shale deposits also extend into Utah. So the <br />demand upon the White River, in my opinion, and the opinion of the <br />staff, is that the development of the energy resources and for the <br />Indian lands in the area will far exceed the available water sup- <br />plies of the basin. That is the simple proposition. <br /> <br />-l9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.