My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00985
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:56:34 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:47:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/5/1969
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.
/
90
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 />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. BARKLEY: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />the Bostwick Park Water Conservancy Dietrict <br />in Montrose, Robert Fischer from the Denver <br />Water Board. Cliff Jex from the Southwestern <br />Water Conservation District. Mr. Phipps from <br />the Northern Colorado Water conservancy Dis- <br />trict. Mr. Brandt from the firm of Holland <br />and Hart here in Denver. Mr. Thomson who is <br />the manager of the Southeastern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy District. Mr. Carlson from Holland <br />and Hart in Aspen, Frank Willers from the City <br />of Aurora. Mr. Balcomb from the Colorado River <br />Water Conservation District. Mr. Rolly <br />Fis~her from that same district. Mr. Nelson <br />from Grand Junction, Mr. Ariozo from Aurora." <br /> <br />"Can you tell us what other areas of dis- <br />agreement or nonconcurrence the Advisory <br />Committee delved into in addition to the <br />question of composition and appointment of <br />the commissions?" <br /> <br />"Generally speaking. Mr. Stapleton. I <br />think we addressed ourselves to the general <br />concept rather than to the individual sec- <br />tions of the bill. There are perhaps numerous <br />details of procedure that might be done dif- <br />ferently but to which no one had any princi- <br />pal objection. <br /> <br />I think we had a con census on the con- <br />cept contained within the bill. aside from <br />the manner and operation of the commissions <br />per se. I am certain that I can say that <br />there was a feeling that the bill did address <br />itself to the solution of conjunctive use of <br />ground and surface waters in a clear. more <br />defined fashion. with more guidelines. more <br />specifics as to how it can be done. than any <br />other proposals that we have seen." <br /> <br />"Now I take it. from your initial comment <br />and you can certainly deny this. that the <br />Advisory Board at this point would not <br />recommend the passage of this bill in its <br />present form as a matter of policy of the <br />Advisory Board? Is that correct?" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.