My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01033
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01033
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:57:25 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:48:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/13/1963
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.
/
134
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 />3722 <br /> <br />but who lack the time, the means, or disposi- <br />tion to drive the three to eight hours to <br />enjoy our mountains. <br /> <br />understandably, the irrigators diverting <br />water from the Arkansas River to supply their <br />farms with water are interested. Some irriga- <br />tors are willing to work with those primarily <br />interested in recreation on a step by step <br />basis, while surprisingly, some irrigators, <br />principally those having points of diversion <br />below John Martin Dam, are opposed to a perma- <br />nent pool above John Martin Dam at any time, <br />for any purpose, or under any circumstances. <br />If I understand their arguments, they argue <br />that the pressure for a permanent pool comes <br />from a very small minority of persons in the <br />Arkansas Valley. Now I have taken no formal <br />or informal polls of this but I suggest that <br />this is incorrect. It is my belief that it is <br />incorrect. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Opponents of the permanent pool also argue <br />that adequate recreational facilities and <br />boating areas exist very close to John Martin <br />Dam which would, or could be better developed; <br />that recreation development in John Martin <br />Dam is not feasible in view of the history and <br />nature of the project and the availability of <br />cheaper and better alternatives in the immed- <br />iate area. This position is refuted by the <br />fact that there are 180,000 visitors a year to <br />this facility even when dry, and when the water <br />is impounded these visitations increase dramati- <br />cally. When reference is made to other ade- <br />quate recreational fishing and boating areas <br />we assume that reference is made to various <br />offstream storage projects to the north. These <br />lakes do provide water surface for boating <br />and are utilized to a degree for fishing. Gen- <br />erally they are shallow and flat and are located <br />in uninspiring terrain. They are privately <br />owned and they are subject to the judgment, if <br />not the whimsey, of their respective owners. <br />Because of irregularity of replenishment, the <br />waters become heavily salt laden and the fish <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />~1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.