My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00887
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00887
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:54:59 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:45:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/8/1966
Description
Minutes
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.
/
61
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Deputy Director, and attorneys, it could never <br />have been brought to pass. Actually this <br />project is finally and at last looks as though <br />it is going to go over. I think that all I can <br />say for the project is that we thank the public <br />officials for all the work they have done - real <br />good effective work." <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />"There has been much bitter controversy <br />concerning the Trinidad Project. I have never <br />seen such difficulty in trying to spend $21 <br />million in Colorado:" <br /> <br />NR. MILENSKI: <br /> <br />"What position is Kansas taking on it?" <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />"Kansas has jumped into the picture lately <br />and we are having some difficulty with the <br />State of Kansas on the project. However, 1tle <br />scheduled a special meeting of the Arkansas <br />River compact Administration in June to try and <br />iron out the problem with Kansas. Another meet- <br />ing has been called for the 2nd of August. We <br />are hopeful that at that meeting the state of <br />Kansas will give its full approval to the <br />project. <br /> <br />Glenn, you went to the meeting in Kansas <br />recently at which the Bureau of Reclamation <br />made every effort to explain the project to <br />the officials of Kansas. It appears at this <br />time that they have no real objections to the <br />project. Their interest is whether or not the <br />project compli2s with the terms of the Arkansas <br />River Compact. They wanted additional time to <br />study the operating principles. We hope that <br />within the month tl1at the matter will be re- <br />solved with I~nsas. <br /> <br />Actually, the congressional delegation of <br />Kansas has flagged the project in the House <br />Appropriations Committee. \'1hat I mean is that <br />they are objecting to the appropriation in the <br />Congress pending some official action by the <br />state. <br /> <br />Are there any other comments or questions <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.