Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It. therefore. was mQVed by J. 101.. Dille and seoonded <br />by .George Bailey th~t the Board appro~ th,e,ma)cing .of an <br />effort to obtain legisl..tion through Congress for the <br />removal of the l..nd limitation. provisions of the Federal <br />Reolamation laws so far, as they apply to the San Luis <br />Valley projeot in Colorado.. and that Director. Stone be <br />empowered to determine the appropriate form of such. legis~ <br />lation after further investigation of the matter in <br />Washington. <br /> <br /> <br />Upon vote being taken the motion _s unanimously <br />passed and declared adopted. <br /> <br />Thereupon there came up for consideration of the. Board the question of <br />the approval of the proposed Cherry Creek Flood Controlprojeot. It was <br />explained that Glenn Saunders, representing the City and County of penTer, <br />oould not be present on the seoond day of the meeting, when Colonel Johnston. <br />Distriot Engineer. Corps of Engineers. would be present and make a further <br />presentation respeoting this projeot. JIr. Saunders and Director Stone re~ <br />ported on the matter, at the oonolusion of whioh the question WIlS put aside <br />to be reoonsidered by the Board on the following day. <br /> <br />Direotor Stone and Chief Engineer Patterson made a report respeoting <br />the reinstatement on the engir.eering staff of. the Board of former staff <br />members who had been engaged in the armed servioes, It was explained by <br />Mr. Patterson that six members of the engineering staff. entered the armed <br />services. that five of them could be reinstated upon their disoharge from <br />the armed servioes, th..t four had returned, but of these two had aodepted <br />other positionsbeoause of the better oompensation offered. He further ex~ <br />plained that there were adequate funds appropriated to the Board for the <br />present biennium to reinstate these men but that oonsiderable diffioulty <br />had been enoountered iR suoh reinstatement due. to . the form of the appropri~ <br />..tion bill. <br /> <br />The Direotor. Chief Engineer PatterllQn, Vena Pointer aDd Henry C. Vidal <br />made a report, under the resolution of the. Board. heretofore pallsed, respeot~ <br />ing the hearing at Lamar, Colorado, on fish. wildlife and reoreational <br />features of the John Martin Dam llnd Reservoir. They reported oonoerning <br />their appearanoe at the hearing where they presented and. supported by their <br />statements the position heretofore taken by the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board, They als 0 explained t,O the Board the arguments and pod ti ons taken <br />by others inoluding representatives of the State of KaIlSas, That state <br />opposed preserving the maintenanoe of a fish pool -or any struotures at the <br />projeot, the operation of which would interfere .with utilization of the <br />oonservation oapaoities provided in the reservoir. <br /> <br />Chief Engineer Patterson w..s <br />oomments of the State of Colorado <br />the Republioan River development. <br />was made by members of the Board. <br /> <br />oalled upon to make a report on proposed <br />on the report of the Army Engineers. on <br />No objeotion to these proposed oOllllllants <br /> <br />The Direotor then reported to the Bos.rd concerning a proposed oontraot <br />of the United States Geologioal Survey, the Bureau of Reolamation and the <br /> <br />State of Colorado respeoting the Closed Basin investigation in the San Luis <br />