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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />.I.lb':l <br /> <br />other states, that they were always to be <br />junior to uses in Colorado.: , <br /> <br />We were quite surprised in reviewing Art- <br />icle IX of that Compact and Article IX of the <br />Rio Grande Compact to find they are almost i- <br />dentical and contain this phrase. The only <br />difference is that they use the words 'pros- <br />pective uses' instead of 'future'. We weren't <br />certain what prospective uses meant, but we were <br />quite sure what future uses meant,' so we changed <br />the word from 'prospective' to 'future'. We can <br />argue this point on the basis of the Compacts <br />which are already entered into. <br /> <br />We must keep this underlying problem in <br />mind. This language places limitations on New <br />Mexico and it might be asked why are we inter- <br />ested in how they use water there. Of course, <br />the San Juan Basin in Colorado h one argument, <br />but there is another underlying reason for our <br />limitations on transmountain diversions. It be- <br />hooves the upper basin states, and for this the <br />lower basin states should be very thankful, to <br />discharge all waters that we possibly can lnto <br />Glen Canyon Reservoir. It's the water which runs <br />through there which pays for the San Juan-Chama <br />the Navajo, and all other projects we have in tte <br />upper basin. You will see later a reservation in <br />which we emphasize that point strongly. <br /> <br />Are there any questions then, or discussion, <br />on what. we have covered here in section 6? <br /> <br />We have again added to Section 6 on page <br />six. We have tried to protect the fist flows of <br />the Navajo the Little Navajo and the Blanco <br />Rivers. The Fish and Wildlife Service, as it was <br />called at that time made a report which is con- <br />tained in the 1955 ~roject Report. They set forth <br />certain minimum fish flows they considered neces- <br />ary. There is nothing which would obligate the <br />maintaining of those flows so we put it in the <br />legislation specifically ttat those minimum fish <br />flows were to be maintained in those rivers.- <br /> <br />MR. BUNGER: <br /> <br />-I would like to ask if the natural flow of <br />those three streams will annually produce the <br />110,000 acre-feet .without storager- <br /> <br />-They will not.- <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.