My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01477
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01477
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:02:20 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:56:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/5/1969
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
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.
/
52
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. KROEGER: <br /> <br />"Thank you, Larry. <br /> <br />Next I'd like to ask the Director of <br />Natural Resources, '1'om Ten Eyck, to conunent." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. TEN EYCK: <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, <br />I'm going to speak only briefly to the meet- <br />ing that was held Monday in the Governor's <br />office. <br /> <br />I think we must recognize, at least I <br />certainly recognize, that there was a charge <br />laid to the Department of Natural Resources <br />sometime ago to undertake, and it was done <br />through the form of a contract with Mr. <br />Geissinger, the preparation of some proposed <br />new water legislation for the state. This <br />was undertaken. <br /> <br />My first meeting as the Director of <br />Natural Resources with this Board took place <br />at the time that your director presented his <br />draft or ~rief of Senate Bill 81, although <br />it was not yet identified as a senate bill <br />at that time. He had some objections; some <br />views that indicated there were some areas <br />that he thought were not completely and <br />properly dealt with. He indicated those in <br />a memo to all of us on the Water Conservation <br />Board. Thereafter began the preparation of <br />the draft that is noW before us. This has <br />been done, I think, with the very best of <br />motives and the intention of presenting to <br />the state the best possible sort of water <br />legislation. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The only major difference that I have <br />been able to see, and I'm not an attorney and <br />I'm not a water expert, but the only major <br />difference that I was ever able to see dealt <br />fundamentally with how the administrative <br />details were managed in the initial work load <br />that would result when we tried to integrate <br />the well uses with the surface water uses in <br />the priority system. These were two differing <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.