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 />1774 <br /> <br />River Ba~in Compact which are somewhat <br />different: than the rights the United States <br />would have if these limitations are effective, <br />and no mention specifically, is made of the <br />fact that the indian rights rest neither on the <br />statute nor the compact, although they are <br />recognized by the compact. The problem is - I <br />I think we all recognize this - if they have <br />rights not based on the statute, are the limita- <br />tions that we hope to see placed on the projects, <br />going to be effective against a claim of <br />rights founded on compacts and treaties? <br /> <br />I think that many of the problems here, <br />from what reports we had during the time we <br />were looking into this, were recognized in 1948 <br />and that everyone understood t~at the problems <br />were not solved. They weren't'solved by the <br />Upper Colorado River Compact. They are very <br />difficult problems because they have been fur- <br />ther confused by the Pelton Dam decision and <br />assertions 'of the Justice Department in Arizona <br />vs. California. I actually don't believe the <br />thinking of these amendments and restrictions <br />are so far apart from the thinking of the State <br />of New Mexico that the matters couldn't be re- <br />solved. 'It is true, I know they aren't going <br />to like some of these things but in many re- <br />spects they merely express w~at New Mexico con- <br />tended would occur as a matter of fact. <br /> <br />I think the problem is . 'really, how we <br />can get at the desired results where our think- <br />ing is not too far apart in an enforceable <br />fashion. I think we oug~t to make it clear in <br />all of our conversations about this that we <br />certainly don't want to reasonably interfere <br />with the development by the State of New Mexico <br />of their water. We 90n't want to be 'dog in <br />the manger'. We want to be as good neighbors <br />with them as we possibly can. I think maybe <br />that exists in the minds of everyone working on <br />this. However, it is still my feeling that <br />because of these very serious problems, the <br />anwers to whibh I have never been able to find' I <br />myself (I hope someday we can), I think we . <br />should meet with the State of New Mexico and <br />discuss what our requirements are, what our <br />fears are, and the restrictions we want to see; <br />and further discuss with them methods by which <br />assurances can be given that these restrictions <br />will be enforceable. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.