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 />if we are, we ought to be consistent on it. Fdr these reasons, this <br />is why t am trying to bring these questions before the board. I <br />realize what Si wants to do and I appreciate his position. <br /> <br />I think we as a board have to look at a cross section of what it is <br />going to do tomorrow and ten years from now. We talked about the use <br />of water in the western slope ten years ago, while we talked about .1 <br />the 1990's. Now we are talking about 2000. And now today we are <br />talking about not needing any water development of a portion of the <br />White River. These are the things that I think ought to be more <br />fully discussed. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: The reason this area was withdrawn to begin with was at <br />the request of the Bureau of Reclamation based upon the Yellow Jacket <br />project. The project has now been revised and does not include the <br />Meadows area. <br /> <br />The oil shale industry is not being deprived of any water by putting <br />the Meadows in a Wilderness area. As a matter of fact, what we are <br />trying to do is to make water available to the oil shale industry <br />which is now being threatened with removal to another area. There <br />are many miles between the boundary of this Wilderness and the state <br />line. In those intervening miles, fifty miles or more, is the oil <br />shale industry. All of that water is available to the oil shale <br />industry. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: May I speak for Utah for a minute, Larry? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: I don't think in fairness to the Chairman we ought to be <br />concerned about the proposed Utah compact. I don't. think it should <br />influence our discussions here today. All that Colorado owns as <br />far as the water in the White River is concerned with reference to <br />Utah, is Colorado's equitable apportionment to that stream. And that <br />apportionment will be hammered out in compact negotiations sometime, <br />I don't know when. Nothing we do in connection with this question <br />will increase or decrease the amount of water Utah is entitled to. <br />And any decrees Colorado grants are limited to Colorado's equitable <br />portion of that stream. All I have suggested by this is, don't let <br />a future confrontation with Utah affect your decision here one way <br />or the other, because I think it is a separate issue. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: The important thing is we cannot count on the full util- <br />ization of all the waters of the White River. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: I would like to have an expression from the board. <br /> <br />-22- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.