My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01352
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01352
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:00:52 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:53:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/1/1966
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.
/
90
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 />partner,. as I recall, of the Director, Mr. <br />Sparks. with those credentials, we are de- <br />lighted to hear from you." <br /> <br />REP. CONKLIN: <br /> <br />"Thank you, Hr. Chairman. I am here today, <br />however, in addition to having the credentials <br />which you mentioned (and thank you for that), <br />as legal counsel for two of the water conser- <br />vancy districts who are vitally concerned with <br />the legislation we are considering today. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I represent the San Miguel Water Conser- <br />vancy District, which is the contracting <br />agency for one of the western slope participat- <br />ing projects that now is included in this <br />proposed bill. I also represent the Grand <br />Mesa Water conservancy District which is again <br />one of the contracting entities with the United <br />States of America for construction of the pro- <br />posed Grand Mesa project. Needless to say, <br />with respect to the Grand Mesa Water Conser- <br />vancy District, that district board of direc- <br />tors is disappointed that the complexion of <br />the resolution as is now before the State <br />Water Board has changed so much from what it <br />appeared to be last August, September, and <br />October, when that board first passed a reso- <br />lution supporting the State Water Board in <br />its then position. <br /> <br />At that time, as I am sure members of <br />this Board realize, conditional authorization <br />for various participating projects was included <br />in the proposed measure and among those proj- <br />ects was the Grand Mesa project. However, that <br />board has authorized me to state to you today <br />that it nonetheless reaffirms its position of <br />support for the legislation as it is now pro- <br />posed before you, because the Grand Mesa Water I <br />Conservancy District realizes that its chances <br />of construction, and of early construction, <br />are certainly enhanced by the passage of this <br />bill as long as it does contain authorization <br />for other projects. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.