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 />MR. STAPLETON: <br />MR. PETERSON: <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. srAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. BARNARD, JR.: <br /> <br />U73 <br /> <br />So in this inter.bnperiod, which could be <br />a period of fifty years or sOl it is possible <br />for New Mexico or Utah to uti ize their share <br />of the water and ours too, or part of ours. <br />If they do that, then they have depleted the <br />flows at. Glen Canyon. It may be permissible <br />for them to do so under the terms of the Compact, <br />but we are the ones who are hurt because we may <br />have to depend on the storage project revenues <br />long after their projects are all completed and <br />in operation.. So we say here that they cannot <br />utilize our water in those states - that we want <br />that water to run on down to Glen Canyon to turn <br />those turbines at Glen Canyon for t~~ Iroject <br />revenues." <br /> <br />"That ought to be controversial enough." <br />"Not as much as the Indian deal here." <br /> <br />"Of course, this will please the lower basin <br />states. We have already been accused of adopting <br />California's position. My answer has been that <br />we have adopted only Colorado's position. If <br />other states adopt a similar position that's <br />their perogative." <br /> <br />"What comments do members of the Board have <br />on these sections?" <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman, I have one or two comments <br />and I wanted to wait until we got to these <br />sections. PHzzling over this particular problem <br />for the past 'two and a half years, and we are <br />still puzzling about some of the problems that <br />arise from it, I think, frankly, that the work <br />that has been done in connection with this bill <br />is excellent. The committee should be oommended <br />on providing the language which meets the ob- <br />jections of the Colorado interests to the origin- <br />al projects. <br /> <br />However the problem arises now - I am <br />thinking particularly about these sections, <br />coupled with Section 7 - this deal of shanng <br />shortage arrangement which New Mexico has within <br />the State of New Mexico; Section 7 talks about <br />the rights of the United States created by these <br />projects; Section Sea) talks about the right of <br />the State of New Mexico under the Upper Colorado <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.