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 />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. DANIELSON: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. STAPLE.TON: <br /> <br />"Thank you, Mr. Beise. Are there any fur- <br />ther comments? Mr. Phil Danielson." <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, I <br />represent the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association <br />which includes a number of ditches and municipal <br />users both above and below John Martin Dam. I <br />would like to say to Mr. Sparks that I am sorry <br />we did not reply to your letter asking for our <br />opinion on this proposed legislation. Unfor- <br />tunately, we have not had a meeting of the Ditch <br />Association since this legislation was proposed <br />. and therefore I am in no position at this time <br />to say that the Ditch Association would accept <br />it or reject it. <br /> <br />I do want to say only briefly two things. <br />First, that the Arkansas Valley Ditch Associa- <br />tion has expressed a policy that it will not <br />object to the creation of a permanent pool pro- <br />vided it can be shown that all of the other <br />water users in the valley are adequately pro- <br />tected. Second, I would like to say that I <br />concur in what Mr. Beise said very much, that <br />it looks to me like it is a package deal and <br />we have so far been unable to get any really <br />concrete statements out of the Game and Fish <br />Department or the proponents of this permanent <br />pool as to exactly how they propose to operate <br />this matter. As a matter of fact, we have had <br />some pretty wildly conflicting statements made <br />to our members and to our meetings as to just <br />what was in mind in operating the pool. I'll <br />throw out just one item. For example: we.were <br />told by a biologist for the Game ~nd Fish De- <br />partment that it would be necessary to have at <br />least eight feet in depth at the dam face in <br />order to maintain fish life. I understand from <br />the topographic tables of the dam that such a <br />depth might entail a storage of up to at least <br />30,000 acre-feet of water rather than the <br />10,000 acre-feet which is under discussion. <br /> <br />Until some of those kind of details can be <br />worked out by Game and Fish itself, so that it <br />knows what it is after, I think that we ought <br />to go slow and look more for a package deal in <br />which we can see all the details of operation." <br /> <br />"Thank you, Mr. Danielson." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.