My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01764
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01764
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:06:48 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:02:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/16/1960
Description
Minutes
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.
/
78
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 />On the bill itself, Frank has briefly sum- <br />marized it. I won't take the time. I'm happy <br />to work with Larry and the Board and it's employ- <br />ees in every way. We want to cooperate, we want <br />to help and we mean that sincerely, but we don't <br />want to jump before we know how it's going to <br />operate and what the effect is going to be and I <br />we still don't see that. Now on this federal <br />bill, there are three or four suggestions. We <br />do feel, as Frank has said, if you are going to <br />purchase water, that land should be retired. We <br />think that is imperative and even though it is a <br />matter of state policy, it ought to be in federal <br />legislation. Secondly, we were convinced that <br />the rules and regulations should be publicized <br />and that this Board should have as much voice in <br />it as the State Engineer, the Chief of Engineers <br />in the Army, and the Arkansas Compact Commission. <br />We would add a fourth Board - the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board - to determine the rules and <br />regulations, restrictions and conditions under <br />which this will be operated and maintained as you <br />mentioned. We want to know about those things. <br /> <br />You might say, what comes first, the hen or <br />the egg? Federal legislation, state legislation <br />or these rules and regulations? Well really, it's <br />a package and you can't completely divorce one <br />from the other and from, I think, our Board's <br />point of view it has not been publicized suffi- <br />cientlyas to how it will operate or where the <br />water will be purchased or how it will be gotten <br />down, and so on. <br /> <br />In conclusion, it is basically an Arkansas <br />River problem and no federal legislation will <br />ever be passed if there is great diversity of <br />opinion in the valley. Therefore, how to get in <br />one view is the objective. We know from going <br />back on the Fryingpan you can't get anything done <br />if the state is divided. I'm sure you can't get <br />anything if the one valley is divided. So.we think <br />this bill, in its essence, has got a lot of merit <br />to it; basically it is all right but it is only I <br />one of three prongs and what are the other two <br />and when can they be decided? We don't think that <br />you should approve the bill and seek federal leg- <br />islation without knowing these other factors. <br /> <br />Thank you." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.