My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01845
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD01845
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:07:58 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:03:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/14/1954
Description
Table of Contents, Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
35
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'S <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher: "If this draft is finally approved by the Board, we . <br />would like very much to have those changes with respect to the Cure- <br />canti. I would much rather, personally, have the State of Colorado', <br />go on record under these' circumstances as being in favor of the <br />Colorado River.Storage Project and the 'Colorado River Storage report, <br />of course, with the modifications that we have already accepte'd. If <br />we leave the door open for us to come in at scme later date with a <br />more specific recommendation concerning the Denver request, it would <br />make Colorado's request stronger and more concrete". <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson: "The group I have talked to on the Western Slope on <br />the original draft feel that the wo~d Whitewater should be deleted <br />in the first phase. When we refer to the Curecanti reservoir, we are <br />referring to the reservoir that was. finally agreed upon by the Policy <br />and Review Committee and later e.pproved by this Board." . <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: "I am wondering - - do. you know whether or not there would <br />be any major objections to what Mr. Dutcher proposed?" <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein: "In my opinion, it would not. The greatest possible <br />flexibility should be provided. I think the thing wiil have to be re- <br />stated. You can't utilize the language in that draft as a whole. The <br />staff of the Bureau. of Reclamation would have no objection to the <br />draft as suggested by Mr. Dutcher." <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: "Mr. Breitenstein, are you willing to make up another <br />draft ?" <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein: "I am perfectly ,-HUng to do anything you want. . <br />I will draft one up." <br /> <br />Senator Williams: "The most important thing is to get the Upper <br />Storage Basin approved. We are not going.to get anything if we try <br />to hold up the Upper Storage Bill. It seems to me it would be the <br />smartest thing to get the Bill approved and when the ownership of <br />this water is decided, we can come in with these projects. I think <br />that is the thing we should get behind on. I am for the storage in <br />the Upper basinll. <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey: III don't think there is any argument there". <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: <br /> <br />"I MJVE that we adjourn until 2:00 P.M." <br /> <br />Mr. Dille: "I SECOND that motion". <br /> <br />MJTION CARRIED. <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.