My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01303
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01303
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:00:08 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:53:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/14/1960
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.
/
103
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 />1"10'/ <br /> <br />"Is there any more discussion on these <br />first sections by members of the Board?" <br /> <br />"I think the reason you should mention the <br />'initial stage' is that in the initial stage <br />they make provisions to build a canal to carry <br />230,000 acre-feet instead of 110,000, and by <br />limiting you will save them that mucn on the <br />project. They won't need to build that large <br />a canal." <br /> <br />"We might make it more feasible for them." <br /> <br />"Are there any members of the audience who <br />would care to comment on these first two sections <br />as Mr. Sparks has discussed them? I take it then, <br />by the discussion, the Board and our guests are <br />in agreement and we can continue." <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />"The ne~t change occurs on page four. You <br />will note the first.thing we have lined out in <br />Section 6, along toward the bottom of the page, <br />are the words 'said initial stage to have an <br />average diversion of one hundred and ten thousand <br />acre-feet of water'. May I stop here for just a <br />moment. For those of you who do not have this <br />bill, there are some right back here on the desk. <br /> <br />The reason we have lined that out is that <br />we have taken care of it in another proviso. <br />The meat of what we added in Section 6 on this <br />page are the words which we have added on the <br />bottom of page 4: 'SAID CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA~ <br />TION OF THE DIVERSION FACILITIES TO INCLUDE ONLY <br />NATURAL FLOW OF THE NAVAJO(_ LITTLE NAVAJO AND . <br />BLANCO RIVERS IN COLORADO ~ SET FORTH IN THE <br />SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT REPORT DATED MAY, 1957'. <br />Now there again we limited this only LO the <br />initial stage because the project report itself <br />contemplates the second stage as taking more <br />water. The project could conceivably embrace <br />other tributaries of the San Juan River and the <br />diversion system actually cuts across other <br />tributaries, such as Coyote Creek. The project <br />report states that they are not taking water <br />from those tributaries. Well, we're taking them <br />at their word, only we're putting it in the <br />legislation. Only these three rivers can be <br />tapped for the transmountain diversion, because <br />Coyote Creek and some of the other tributaries, <br />have irrigation development along them within <br />the State of Colorado. <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.