My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01412
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01412
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:01:30 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:54:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/16/1953
Description
Minutes and 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.
/
36
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 />114 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Vice-Chairman Bailey asked if Denver had anything further <br />to add to this discussion. <br /> <br />lfr. Saunders, speaking for Denver, commented as follows: <br /> <br />"This situation has been treated as somehwat of <br />a political matter. The political nature is indicated <br />by the concentration of geographical area represented. <br />The question has arisen as to whetiler or not the <br />approval of the Fryingpan-Arkansas diversion so tied <br />the Board's hands as to preclude the consideration of <br />other projects for the development of the remainder of <br />the State. No public official has the right to destroy <br />his povTer to act. Mr. Delaney and other representatives <br />of the Western Slope referred to the resolution that no <br />further federally financed transmountain diversion <br />projects be built until investigations on the Western <br />Slope are completed. Does the :Iestern Slope ask that the <br />Water Board refuse approval of any project simply because <br />it is a transmountain diversion project?" he asked. <br /> <br />"While the 430,000 acre-foot Blue River Project <br />might have injured the ',1estern Slope, no one has <br />indicated how this Denver proposal would be injurious <br />to the ';/estern Slope. If the ,"[estern Slope .vill not <br />be injured, why are we having this opposition?" <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"Regarding the subject of palTer, it would not be <br />wise for Denver to build this tunnel that will carry <br />788 c.f.s. and then not use it to generate power. It <br />is hoped that the Denver metropolitan area can organize <br />and work ,vith the Thlreau for full development of this <br />project. The Bureau of Reclamation has not yet come <br />up ,lith a plan to go to Congress. Denver cannot wait. <br />We cannot forget when we were out of water in 1933. <br />If the Bureau has not yet designed its project by the <br />time the tunnel is built, Denver will then build . <br />hydroelectric plants and use the revenues from such <br />plants. It is still hoped, hcw{ever, that the Bureau <br />of Reclamation VQll have a plan designed by the time <br />the tunnel is finished." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.