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 />1768 <br /> <br />As a matter of fact, some Colorado ditches <br />will be constructed starting next year to <br />utilize the direct flow of the Navajo and Little <br />Navajo which will be in direct competition with <br />this diversion project. We have tried to protect <br />those ditches by this language and not only <br />that, but in future language, that we will dis- <br />cuss later. . <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br />If you will turn over to page five you <br />come to the rest of Section 6 where we have <br />made some substantial changes. We have added <br />a Section (a) which reads 'THE SECRETARY OF <br />INTERIOR SHALL SO OPERATE THE PROJECT' - now we <br />are talking about the San Juan-Chama - 'THAT <br />DIVERSIONS TO THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY SHALL NOT <br />EXCEED 16100~OOO ACRE~FEET OF WATER IN ANY PERIOD <br />OF TEN C NSE~UTIVE YEARS RECKONED IN CONTINUING <br />PROGRESSIVE SERIES STARTiNG WITH THE FIRST DAY <br />OF OCTOBER AFTER THE PROJECT SHALL HAVE COMMENCED <br />OPERATION'. This is a very familiar phrase to <br />this Board because we have gone over it time and <br />time again in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. <br />Here again we feel that if Colorado is willing <br />to plac~ certain limitations upon its trans- <br />mountain diversions, New Mexico should do likewise. <br />Again it is for the protection of the San Juan <br />Basin in Colorado, and also, this is what they <br />say they need. So if that's what they say they <br />need, we say, let it be no more than that. <br /> <br />Now we come to another very pertinent <br />phrase6 Section (b): 'THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR <br />SHALL PERATE THE PROJECT SO THAT THERE SHALL BE <br />NO INJURY, IMPAIRMENT OR DEPLETION OF EXISTING <br />OR FUTURE BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER WITHIN THE <br />STATE OF COLORADO, THE USE OF WHICH IS WITHIN <br />THE APPORTIONMENT MADE TO THE STATE OF COLORADO <br />BY ARTICLE III OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN <br />COMPACT'. Of course, that will be the cause of <br />some consternation in the State of New Mexico. <br />What we have said is that the San Juan-Chama <br />Project is junior to any and all present and <br />future uses of Colorado as long as those uses I <br />are within our apportionment under the Compact. <br />We have authority for this language in both <br />the Upper Colorado River Compact and in the <br />Rio Grande Compact. Both of those compacts use <br />substantially the same language that we have <br />used in this amendment. In other words, I <br />think the negotiators for Colorado - Judge Stone <br />and Judge Breitenstein - intended that if trans- <br />mountain diversions were made from Colorado to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.