My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00736
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00736
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:53:37 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:43:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/18/1958
Description
Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
66
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 />1037 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />project - there are not many of the members <br />on this Board today who were here in 1951 <br />and 1952 - but this project was studied <br />thoroughly by a committee appointed by this <br />Board which had respective and respected and <br />responsible people from both areas of the <br />State, together with the representative of <br />this Board, who negotiated for some thirty <br />months before action by this Board was taken <br />approving this project. <br /> <br />Gentlemen, I have in my files a copy of <br />a letter which was addressed to Senators <br />Milliken and Johnson which specifically indicated <br />that the then Director, Clifford H. Stone, had <br />drafted the legislation to be sent to the United <br />States Congress in accordance with the operating <br />principles and the agreement that was made <br />between the various areas and approved by this <br />Board. Almost immediately, gentlemen, we were <br />confronted with the statement that the final <br />answer they needed in Congress was, 'What is <br />the priority of projects in Colorado?' <br /> <br />We have been continually confronted with <br />that. We have seen evidence of the emascula~ <br />tion of legislation that was prepared on the <br />basis of long study by this Board before that <br />Congress, and I submit, gentlemen, that just <br />recently one amendment submitted by California <br />which would have made it possible for them to <br />attack every project in the Upper Colorado <br />River Storage Project was submitted, and the <br />people in the Arkansas Valley, with the possible <br />chance of throwing their bill out of that Con- <br />gress, out of that committee, took the position <br />that we would not accept one comma difference <br />from the stipulations that have been contained <br />in the Public Law 485 that authorized the <br />Colorado River Storage Project. <br /> <br />You all know well where the rest of the <br />amendments that have been placed on that bill <br />come from. I am here today as a member of the <br />Board of Directors of the Water Development <br />Association of Southeastern Colorado. I am <br />also a member of the Southeastern Colorado <br />Water Conservancy District recently established <br />by the district court. I am sure; and it is our <br />position, gentlemen, that we stand ready and <br />willing to sign an agreement with this Board, <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.