My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01303
CWCB
>
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 />1776 <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. CONOUR: <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br />MR. CON OUR: <br /> <br />River Storage Project and the Board arrived <br />at conclusions, presented the bill! and I <br />think the bill wound up in the wasLebasket in <br />Congress in about two or three months and was <br />completely forgotten. <br /> <br />So I am just wondering, even if New Mex- <br />ico'would agree to this, what might happen to <br />the bill when it gets in Congress and if the <br />bill is the approach to make? I am just asking <br />the question. I just don't know." <br /> <br />"In answer to both comments, of course, the <br />only thing we can do here at this time is to <br />authorize submission of this bill, as amended~ <br />to the State of New Mexico and to Colorado's ~on- <br />gressional delegation! so that conferences can <br />then be held between Lhe two states to determine <br />what finally can be agreed upon. We are fully <br />aware of the fact that New Mexico will offer <br />some amendments to our amendments which will <br />probably be acceptable to us. But this is a <br />starting point and after these many years we've <br />got to start with New Mexico because they are un- <br />happy that this legislation has been repeatedly <br />introduced in the United States Congress without <br />re sult . <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />They say 'What do you want? Give us some- <br />thing to work on'. In all these years we have <br />never said one word to them OT what we want. <br />Finally we have made a start and that is all <br />this is - a start." <br /> <br />"How would you plan to carryon your nego- <br />tiations now?" <br /> <br />"We would submit this to New Mexico and <br />offer to meet with them at any time to discuss <br />these provisions with them after they have had <br />an opportunity to formulate their own opinion. <br />I would assume that New Mexico would want a <br />meeting within the next two weeks after this <br />has been submitted to them." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman." <br /> <br />"Mr. Conour." <br /> <br />"I got in late and missed out on some of <br />this discussion but I would like to refer back <br />to paragraph (c) on page five. Should there <br />not be added after the word 'constructed' the <br />words 'and operated'?' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.