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 />We believe, based on that, that the pending litigation should be <br />dismissed. We have no guarantee of that, because we don't know how <br />the Federal Judge in Washington, D. C., will interpret that act. But <br />the Act is fairly plain. It states exactly what it means. If the <br />Federal Judge is going to defy congress, he. can do so, I presume. But <br />I doubt that such will happen. <br /> <br />That was the most critical lawsuit that has ever been filed in the long I' <br />history of the Colorado River. I want to compliment IvaI Goslin, <br />p~rticularly, because he is the one that did most of the leg work in <br />Washington in representing the states. <br /> <br />I might say that we got very little help from the state water people <br />of the other states in this matter. I worked on it along with Tommy <br />Thomson from the Southeastern District and .Rolly Fischer from the <br />Colorado River.District. We had considerable help in Colorado. But <br />strangely enough, we got almost no help from our counterparts in the <br />other states. <br /> <br />The congressional delegations from virtually all of the western states <br />were quite solidly united on that issue, and some who voted against <br />overriding the President's veto on the appropriations bill switched <br />their votes and voted for this legislation, as did Congresswoman <br />Schroeder. There were several other western representatives who voted <br />to uphOld the President on the veto who switched and voted fOr this <br />piece of legislation. <br /> <br />The other item, that I have already mentioned, that we got through at <br />the last moment, the other very_critical item, was the legislation to <br />satisfy the opinion of the solicitor of the Department of the Interior <br />on the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. That was passed at the last minute <br />and added again to another bill. <br /> <br />The third item we had was an amendment to the Chatfield Project Act to <br />permit the Corps of Engineers to enlarge the storage in chatfield <br />Reservoir for municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes. The <br />last I knew, it was proceeding with difficulty. What has subsequently <br />happened, I don't know. <br /> <br />Bob, do you know what happened? <br /> <br />MR. ROBERT FISCHER: NO, I don't, Larry. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: That was added to another bill. We had no ,problem adding <br />that, but the bill was in some jeopardy because it was an authorization <br />bill for a number of projects. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />MR. GOSLIN: Larry, was that bill the Public Works Authorization Bill? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Yes. <br /> <br />MR. GOSLIN: As far as I know, that was killed right at the very last. <br />It was killed by the environmentalists. <br /> <br />-34- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.