My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00930
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00930
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:55:26 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:45:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/10/1961
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.
/
70
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 />~~b~ <br /> <br />would do nothing but obscure the bridge and <br />destroy a substantial part of the area. <br /> <br />It is almost incredible that anyone would <br />insist that such protective works should be con- <br />structed; Nevertheless there are people who are <br />insisting on this .type of scheme and eacb year <br />money has been placed in the budget for the initia- <br />tion of construction on such protective works. <br />To date Congress has refused to appropriate ,that <br />money. Many of the Congressmen themselves have <br />visited the bridge, generally by helicopter, and <br />have been appalled at the tremendous waste which <br />would occur, both in money and in the natural <br />landscape, if such so-called protective works <br />were constructed. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The Secretary of the Interior, both the <br />previous Secretary, Mr. Seaton, and the present <br />Secretary, Mr. Udall, have also visited the site <br />and they have been opposed to such protective <br />works. The Secretary is now proposing that a <br />national park be established in the area and that <br />the boundaries be enlarged and the area be devel- <br />oped into an attractive scenic area in its <br />natural state which could be visited by a large <br />number of people. But the issue will be a con- <br />tinuing fight for some years to come until it is <br />finally resolved one way or another. If the pro- <br />tective works are constructed, we might as well <br />have taken $25,000,000 in cash and put a match to <br />it. It's a complete waste and, of course, <br />affects all of the development in the Upper Basin <br />states. That's money which we would have to pay <br />back through power revenues and would deplete <br />the Upper Basin Fund which will be available <br />eventually for the construction of our Uppe~ Basin <br />projects. <br /> <br />So what I am recommending to the Board is '.1'. <br />that I be authorized to write a letter to the <br />'~ecretary of the Interior expressing the opposi- <br />tion of the State of Colorado to SUch protective <br />works as are now proposed, and joining with the <br />Secretary in his proposal to establish a national <br />park in the area, enlarge the boundaries of the <br />present monument, and to place the area under the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.