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 />The areas involved. particularly on the western <br />slope. are tremendous as you have suggested. <br />I presume this is not anything that couldn't <br />be changed or couldn't be considered differ- <br />ently. but certainly it is a long, long <br />distance from all areas of the western slope <br />to a single point. I presume you have done <br />this primarily on the basis of work load. <br />Would it be impossible to have more points <br />and maybe certain commissions whose adminis- <br />tration would overlap?" <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS, <br /> <br />"Yes. There is a question in our minds <br />whether or not these commissions are large <br />enough. It may be that we would have to <br />expand them. depending upon the work load. <br />to include more people and at more locations. <br />This was our best judgment at this time con- <br />sidering the work load which we can visualize <br />that these four commissions must perform. <br />If it is necessary to add to them we think <br />this can be done at any time." <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER, <br /> <br />"If I read this thing correctly. I would <br />conclude that adjudication proceedings are <br />open then. under this bill. at all times. <br />They are never closed. If this is so. you <br />have suggested a fee of $25.00 and this would <br />go no place towards the administration of this <br />bill. the administration of our water law. <br />Also wouldn't this allow a lot of nuisance <br />type continual filings to go on with prac- <br />tically no cost to the individual? If this <br />fee was raised rather Substantially. and I <br />suppose this is where I show I am really not <br />a coward. if we had a fee of at least $100 <br />or maybe more. $150 or $200, anybody that <br />came in with this thing would be serious. <br />They would mean business. Then this would <br />also go a long ways towards paying for the <br />costs of the very thing that is involved and <br />the people that are involved so that money <br />wouldn't have to be raised particularly from <br />areas of little conflict to help administer <br />problems that are created in other districts." <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.