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 />J.OOJ. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />have just passed out. The small sheet of paper <br />says: 'S. 72' at the top. <br /> <br />I think we will go through the bill that was <br />agreed to at Santa Fe. You will notice that the <br />first page is the same way that we had it before. <br />We did not agree to any changes. We specified <br />the 'Initial stage of the San Juan-Chama~ and <br />then 'as conditioned, modified and limited here- <br />in'. Those are the only changes which occur on <br />page one. <br /> <br />On page two, at the Santa Fe conference, on <br />the fifth line the word 'approximately' should be <br />lined out and in lieu thereof the words 'not to <br />exceed one hundred and ten thousand six hundred <br />and thirty acres of land'. <br /> <br />We modified the proviso we had to some ex- <br />tent. Our chief worry all along with the Navajo <br />Irrigation Project has been it's possible inter- <br />ference with the Animas-La Plata Project which is <br />a joint Colorado-New Mexico Project. In other <br />words, we did not want any additional call put <br />upon the Animas River in Colorado which has not <br />already been there historically. We have con- <br />sidered many things as a limitation on that <br />Indian project but in final analysis we considered <br />only this proviso which you have before you - the <br />new one, and that is, that the San Juan River <br />flow, or the waters stored in Navajo Reservoir, <br />must be first utilized to satisfy the pre-compact <br />rights in New Mexico which are the Cudai, the <br />Hogback and the other Indian projects below Farm- <br />ington. That's been our chief worry all along. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Now New Mexico has not seen this new proviso <br />that we have added, but we think that it defines <br />Colorado's position. Both the storage and the <br />natural flow of the San Juan must be utilized <br />to satisfy those downstream rights. That is the <br />only way that we think the Animas-La Plata Proj- <br />ect is absolutely safe insofar as demands in New <br />Mexico are concerned." <br /> <br />MR. BARNARD, JR.: "A question. Does this proviso take the <br />place of the entire proviso?" <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />"It takes the place of the entire proviso be- <br />cause it does not make any difference to us as <br />to how they use the water out of the Navajo Res- <br />ervoir so long as it is used to satisfy those <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.