Laserfiche WebLink
<br />122 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher said that the matter should be the concern of <br />the Committee and that it should decide how much information might be <br />available from the Bureau of Reclamation and the Water Conservation <br />Board and what data were necessarily to be acquired by other means. <br /> <br />Mr. Frank Meaker, member of the House of Representatives <br />from Montrose County, stated that a skeleton bill had been introduced <br />in the Legislature calling for an appropriation of $100,000.00, and <br />with the help of those interested, it might be passed and funds used <br />for the purposes of the Committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Cory urged that all concerned should support the bill. <br /> <br />The time which might be required before such a Conference <br />Committee might make its report was considered and discussed. <br /> <br />It was felt that no definite time limit should be placed <br />on the activities of the Committee, but that every effort should be <br />made to expedite its studies. <br /> <br />There was no further discussion, and on vote being taken, <br />the motion was unanimously carried and declared adopted. <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher asked if there were further comments from <br />Western Slope Board members or representatives, and the suggestion <br />was made that in the study to be made by the Co~~ttee, all vested <br />water rights should be recognized and their effect on the proposed <br />Denver diversion be determined. <br /> <br />J <br />'..I\TI.io'..J. I <br />~,.,.. I, )r.t..,fJ.- <br />l...!r",.'.'. Y' V <br />/>J.' ~ <br />IL, <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein inquired whether the potential pm1er <br />right at Green Mountain Reservoir, ,vith a possible precluding <br />effect on the Denver diversion, was to be considered a vested right. <br /> <br />l~. Delaney stated that the matter of this pOTIer right was <br />at the present time before the Court, and that while the Western <br />Slope was not in any way receding from its position in the litigation <br />proceedings, for the purposes of the study by the Committee, this <br />right might not necessarily be considered as an existing water right. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />It was then moved by E. L. Dutcher and seconded by <br />J. M. Dille that, anticipating that the GUTh~ison River Basin might <br />be involved in the studies of the Colorado Conference Committee, the <br />Policy and Review Comwittee--Gunnison River Storage, appointed for <br />the purpose of determining the differences existing between areas in <br />the Gunnison River Basin, be reactivated so that the Colorado <br />