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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br />MR. KIMBALL: <br /> <br />acre-feet of space - now unused in John Martin <br />Reservoir which is reserved for flood control. <br />That reservoir was designed to take the greatest <br />flood of record which happened in 1921. Pueblo <br />Reservoir will control that flood, or a major <br />portion of it, and will relieve that flood con- <br />trol space in John Martin Reservoir so that we <br />can appropriately ask the Corps of Engineers to <br />raise the conservation pool. Now at that time <br />are we going to tell the recreational interests <br />that this Board is fighting for the raising of <br />the conservation pool only? And that we have <br />neglected other interests? I think not. If we <br />are going to fight for the raising of that pool, <br />then we should fight for every purpose and we <br />must keep that in mind. <br /> <br />Suppose these recreation people start fight- <br />ing us five or ten years from now when we ask <br />the Corps to put another 100,000 feet in there <br />for irrigation purposes. That's what we want <br />to do. So I think the only step that we can <br />take at this time is to get the Congress to <br />authorize this purpose in John Martin Reservoir. <br />The Southeastern District has proposed a good <br />amendment. I see nothing wrong with it. The <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board would be an- <br />other agency to approve this. There are other <br />state agencies. I don't think anyone has to be <br />afraid they are going to be bypassed. God knows <br />this Board has done everything in its power to <br />cooperate with everybody. The people in the <br />Arkansas Valley are in favor of this, I think. <br />We cannot put these working agreements in federal <br />legislation. lie simply can't do it. We can put <br />all the safeguards that can possibly be put <br />there. This Board, or any other agency, can be <br />brought into it to approve these operating prin- <br />ciples at some later date. Let them do it, give <br />them the authority to do it. I don't see that <br />it makes any difference because whatever plan, as <br />Mr. Beise has already said, is never going to <br />work unless it is approved by those people in <br />the Arkansas Valley." <br /> <br />"Mr. Kimball." <br /> <br />"Mr. Sparks made the statement that the Army <br />engineers were opposed to this 20,000 acre-feet. <br />They have never told us that; that they <br />were opposed to any particular limitation on the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.