My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01415
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01415
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:01:34 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:54:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/1/1978
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.
/
95
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 />MR. GORMLEY: I SO move. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Second. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: It has been moved and seconded. Is there any further <br />discussion? (NO response.) All those in favor signify by saying <br />"Aye." (Unanimous ayes.) Those Opposed? (NO response.) <br /> <br />The Larkspur Project is approved. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. BURNETT: Thank you. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br />interesting, a <br />fication of an <br /> <br />Let's now turn to agenda item number 3, which is very <br />series of negotiations, and it now calls for the rat~- <br />agreement. <br /> <br />So, Larry, will you start this discussion? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Mr. Chairman, this is a controversy which has been going <br />on now for at least two years. It was abQut two years ago that the. <br />Governor became concerned with the matter and directed Mr. Sherman and <br />me to intervene as representatives of the state government to try tQ <br />satisfy what was becoming a very sticky problem here in Colorado. It <br />was a conflict between the Eastern and western Slope interests cOn- <br />cerning transmountain diversions. It is a conflict which we have had <br />over the y~ars and which we will probably continue to have in the future. <br />Nevertheless, over the years we have been able to resolve most of these <br />conflicts in a satisfactory matter. <br /> <br />This particular controversy involved the city of Aspen and Pitkin <br />County on one side and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy <br />District, representing the Arkansas Valley, on the other side. It had <br />to do with minimum streamflows on Hunter Creek, which is a tributary of <br />Roaring Fork. Hunter Creek originates just west of the Continental <br />Divide and flows westerly into the Roaring Fork near the city of Aspen. <br /> <br />I won't go into all the details of the controversy. .1 have outlined <br />them to the Board in the past, and I gave a brief explanation of it in <br />the memorandum which I sent to the Board. <br /> <br />Suffice it to say that, after numerous drafts and changes of a suggested <br />agreement among the parties, that an agreement was finally arrived at <br />during a meeting held in the Board's office on Saturday, October 7, <br />at which all the parties were present. We did arrive at an agreement <br />which was promptly typed on that Saturday by our secretary, Mrs. Martel, I <br />and was approved at that time by the attorneys for the parties. That <br />agreement was subsequently approved by the city of Aspen and Pitkin <br />County, by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and <br />by Mr. Sherman and me representing the state. The final signatures. <br />on that agreement were obtained day before yesterday when Governor Lamm <br />signed the agreement, at which time the parties were present in two <br />ceremonies, one in Pueblo and one in Colorado Springs. <br /> <br />It was the opinion of the solicitor of the Department of the Interior <br /> <br />-16- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.