My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00744
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00744
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:53:49 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:43:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/10/1973
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.
/
91
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 />then we could have our input on, record and live up to it as a state <br />agency appropriately involved in this kind of a determination. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: Ray, could I ask a question? This bill says to authorize <br />a study. So if we approve this, are we implying that we approve the <br />results of the study? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: As I understand the proposed resolution, it would be to <br />approve the study. <br /> <br />Mr. Geissinqer: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if it might not be a proper <br />approach to this type of action on the part of this board that here we <br />are talking about a study. Do we necessarily have to recommend? I <br />think we will still have the same posture if we pass a resolution to <br />the effect that we have no objection to this because of the fact that <br />it is our considered opinion that this will not affect the development <br />of either present resources or future water resources in the state. I <br />think that is more in keeping with the historic functions of the board <br />and rather than recommending the study, I would say that we take the <br />approach that we are not inclined to object to it because we can't see <br />any interference with our primary function which is to protect the water <br />resources in the state of Colorado. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeqer: Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Mr. Kroeger. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeqer: I feel that the board should take a positive approach to <br />this. Historically, we have been one who protected the water interests <br />and we did take a negative view with a lot of things, but I think it is <br />time that we took a positive view on some matters of this kind. And I <br />would think that with all respect to Jim and his wisdom that we really <br />have an opportunity here to function on a broader scope than just a <br />negative approach as not being opposed to the bill. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Are there any questions from the board? I know there <br />are a lot of people in the audience. <br /> <br />Mr. Berthelson: Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: si. <br /> <br />Mr. Berthelson: Is there any provLsLon in the wild rivers act that would <br />at some future date allow a change in some water development in case the <br /> <br />-10- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.