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 />Mr. Berthelson: Isn't it also true, Larry, to put it into perspec- <br />tive, maybe this would be the position of the board it would take on <br />it if the water can be used and developed, if 702 is passed including <br />the Meadows. In other words, it can be used down below. All we are <br />saying is that there is no need at this time for water development <br />on the upper reaches of the South Fork and that if at some future <br />date the overriding demand requires it, maybe the President will let I <br />them go in there. But at this time, we are saying that the water <br />can be developed below the Wilderness area and used as well or <br />better than a certain plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: The Meadows area was the original Forest Service proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Eyck had the responsibility for the Department of Natural <br />Resources to make a recommendation to the Governor concerning that <br />original proposal. At that time, which was back in the 60's, we <br />still had not determined the scope of the Yellow Jacket project. At <br />the same time, I met with the Governor and informed him that we <br />would proceed with the Yellow Jacket project as rapidly as possible <br />and would advise him in the future as to whether or not it could get <br />by without the Meadows area. Subsequently, we eliminated Trappers <br />Lake. We also eliminated all of the dams up in the Meadows area. <br />The Yellow Jacket project was presented to this board at a meeting <br />in Meeker without any of these areas in it. I so informed the <br />Governor. The Governor was informed that as far as the Yellow Jacket <br />project was concerned, there was no conflict with the Meadows area. <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Evck: May I amplify on that, Mr. Chairman? As Larry indi- <br />cated, it was in the 60's and it was actually ahead of my time, when <br />the first recommendation by the Governor and the federal government <br />were agreed upon on omission of that southwest sector for future <br />possible developments of the Yellow Jacket project. <br /> <br />When Senator Allott proposed the re-introduction of legislation to <br />create the Flat Tops Wilderness area, he contacted us here in the <br />state. Larry had had his discussion with the Governor, I visited <br />with the Governor, and as a result of that, the Governor said, "I no <br />longer request the withdrawal of this southwest sector, including <br />the Meadows area. We believe the need for that no longer exists." <br />Subsequently and very recently when Senator Haskell and Senator <br />Dominick attended the hearings here in Colorado, the only official I <br />agency of the state of Colorado to attend those hearings was the <br />Division of Wildlife. And they made very guarded comments because . <br />they were aware of the Governor's earlier decision to exclude that <br />area, but they were also aware of his more recent decision that the <br />exclusion was no longer necessary. Because of the timing, this <br />happened I think actually before our meeting in Glenwood Springs, the <br /> <br />-20- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.