Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />V~ <br /> <br />Meeting reoonvened at 1:45 P.M., January 15, 1941, with Chris <br />Wallrioh, Vice_Chairman of the Boar~, presiding. <br /> <br />Motion mad~ by Mr. Carpenter before the noon recess wa.. <br />wi thdravm. <br /> <br />Thereupon Mr. Stolle moved that it is the sellse of the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board that any legislation respecting stook watering <br />ponds shall provide for the limitation of ten acre feet storage capaoity, <br />the height of dam be fixed at 15 feet to the spillway and the details <br />as' to prooedure be further worked out, inoorporated into a proposed <br />bill and submitted to the Board by the Committee of which Mr. Carpenter <br />is Chairman. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />The motion was seoonded by Mr. Bailey aDd, after disoussion, was <br />unanimously carried. <br /> <br />Thereupon Director Stone oalled to the attention of the Board the <br />suggestion for the amendment of the statute providing for the oreation of a <br />water oonservanoy distriot entitled "An Aot to Provide for the Organization <br />of Water Conservanoy Distriota and to Define the Purpose.. and Power.. Thereof", <br />passed in 1937 and amended in 19:$. It was e1tplained that the suggestion had <br />been made that Seotion 13 (b) be amended by striking everything after the <br />words "'Provided, however,"' and inserting in lieu thereof the following I <br /> <br />"Provided, however, that any project develcpment providing for <br />water transportation fram the watershed of any river subjeot to <br />the Colorado River Compact, the Boulder CanyonProjeot Aot by MY <br />distriot or districts, organized or to be organized under this <br />act, shall be so designed and oplrated that the present and <br />prospeotive development within the basin from whioh the water is <br />exported shall be proteoted." <br /> <br />Mr. Stone stated that the proposed amendment be so drafted that it <br />would not apply to districts already organized, which would mean that this <br />limitation provision in the Aot would still hold as against the Colorado Big <br />Thompson Projeot. He explained that the langUage suggested_was undoubtedly <br />subject to refinements and perhaps to sane additions, but that in general the <br />language represents the reoommendation of a special committee appointed to <br />drat'\; the proposal. He called attention to the Board that the Weste.rn Slope an <br />San Lui/13 Valley were interested in the III&tter and that representations from sUO <br />area/13 should be heard. It was stated that the Colorado River Conservation Bo&l' <br />would convene in Denver the following day and that the question should be talc <br />up with that Board and some attempt made to work out an agreement as to the <br />appropriate language. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It Il'aS agreed that Judge A. W. MoBendrie, representing the Ark/lllBaS <br />Valley, Silmon Smith, a Member of the Board, and Frank C. Merriell, Engineer- <br />Seoretary of the Colorado River Conservation Board, revi~the language for <br />amendment and submit their suggestions to the Board. <br /> <br />It was moved by Mr. Stone Md seconded by Mr. Smith that it is the <br />policy of the Colorllldo Water Conservation Board that any appropriatl. on by the <br />Congress of the United States of money from the Colorado River Development <br />Fund, Bet up under the Boulder Canyon Projeot Adjustment Aot, be subjeot to <br />