Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />The Director stated that he believed it desirable that any recommen- <br />dations should be given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board at the same <br />time they are submitted to the Planning Commission and other interested groups. <br />He felt that unanimity of action is necessary and was opposed to the Board <br />not having information of recomIDEndations before they became too far crystal- <br />lized. <br /> <br />WIT. Nelson stated that when the plan was formulated in tentative form <br />he would submit it to interested state agencies and other interested State <br />groups and then call them together for a joint meeting. <br /> <br />iay, <br /> <br />It was moved by Mr., Dille and seconded by Mr, Smith that the <br />responsibility for the Colorado Water Conservation Board's par- <br />ticipation in an attempt to solve the problem of recreational and <br />fish and wildlife facilities in connection with water conservation <br />projects be left to the Director, and if his judgment dictates he <br />should call a meeting of the Board to consider anything which he <br />is not prepared to decide. <br /> <br />The motion was unanimously carried and declared adopted. <br /> <br />"s <br /> <br />, Mr. E. B. Debler of the Bureau of Reclamation brought to the attention <br />of the Board adjustments which were authorized by Senate Document 80 in con- <br />nection with the Colorado-Big Thompson Project through an expenditure of <br />$300,000 to install irrigation facilities in Grand County made necessary by <br />the diversion of water by the Colorado-Big Thompson Transmountain Project. <br />He stated that certain individual water users desire to accept a proportionate <br />share of money authorized by the Government for the installation of facilities. <br />He questioned whether such payments to individuals would be in accord with <br />the intent of Senate Document 80, A general discussion ensued and it was <br />the view of the members of the Board that such payments were not in the best <br />interest of the State of Colorado and not in accord with the intent and pro- <br />visions of Senate Document 80. <br /> <br />I, <br /> <br />Thereupon Mr. Smith offered and moved the passage of the <br />following resolution, <br /> <br />Resolution <br /> <br />lons <br /> <br />BE IT RESOLVED that it is the judgment of the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board that the expenditure by the Bureau of <br />Reclamation of nct to exceed $300,000 as provided in Senate <br />Document No. 80 in paragraph "j" upon the subject of the "Manner <br />of operation of the facilities and auxiliary features of the <br />Colorado-Big Thompson Project," should be made in a manner calcu- <br />la ted to preserve the present and future beneficial use of the <br />waters of the river, rather than for the settlement of claims <br />for damage which might result, except for the expenditure of such <br />sum upon the river, <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the resolution was seconded <br />by Mr. Nelson and upon vote being taken was unanimously carried and <br />de c lared ad opted. <br /> <br />Mr. E. B. Debler was called upon to report concerning a meeting held <br />at Gunnison, Colorado, in September, to discuss with local interests the <br />