My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01323
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01323
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:00:24 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:53:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/11/1978
Description
Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
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.
/
104
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. ERGER: <br />left out. <br /> <br />We don't know the mechanics. <br />That is what we are saying. <br /> <br />We just don~t want to be <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Erger, as you'know, the Central Water Conservancy <br />District has been negotiating with the state -- <br /> <br />MR. ERGER: Right. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: -- Almost three years. <br /> <br />MR. ERGER: Right. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: The City of Aurora has also expressed its interest. So <br />it is not a big surprise that we are going to need a change inlegisla- <br />tion in order to make Chatfield available for re-regulating, no matter <br />who runs it. <br /> <br />MR. ERGER: And I think we can cooperate with some of the cities and <br />work a lot out, because we have use for the water down below. I <br />think we can work it out. But we just wanted to come here and say <br />that. We don't want to be left out. And Central -- Just to sort of <br />bring you up to date, we are negotiating with the four ditch companies <br />to work with them in cooperation, and that sort of, you know, went by <br />the wayside. I don't know how it will ever come out. But the four <br />ditch companies, if they have to cooperate with Central, will do that. <br />But we just want to make ourselves known -- that we sure want to be in <br />there' to cooperate with a lot of different people. So we wanted to <br />make our position known at this time. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: As I understand it, if we don't take some action today, <br />we will be two years away from anything. <br /> <br />MR. ERGER: I am not -trying to delay anything. I am just saying that <br />we want'to be part of it. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: You are on the record. Thank you very much. <br /> <br />Are there any other comments? <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, I would simply comment that I think, first <br />of all, that I am sure we have to pass this and get it on its way. <br />But I think this is a classic example of the extra-legal status of <br />minimum flows and the problems that they will generate for Jim and <br />other entities like the one he represents,: over the state in future <br />years -- where we have literally a release of water with an attempt to <br />re-appropriate and re-regulate later, which I think poses some problems <br />that are just mind boggling. And we had better step up the issue as <br /> <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.