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 />"9'1l <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein read paragraph 2, and said, "That is the basi.c <br />theory for the plan for the Colorado River project". <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />No remarks on paragraph 3. <br /> <br />Upon reading p'aragraph 4, Mr. Breit.enstein stated, "That is a very <br />general statement of this subject". <br /> <br />Mr. Breite'nstein proceeded to read paragraph 5., and remarked, "Glen <br />Canyon does help out the lower basin and if our people in Congress <br />can use a position like this, I think we, should afford them the <br />pOl'Ier to do it." (No objections). Paragraph 6 was okayed.. <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein read paragraph 7, and remarked, "The idea there is <br />thi.s -- ready market for Glen Cany,on power in the lower basin. It <br />seems to me that it is desirable to use it in Upper Basin when Upper <br />Basin has a market for it." No objections. <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein reads paragraph 8. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: lI'Of course you run into a financial problem. I consider <br />this an imp~rtant factor and in addition it would give our represen- <br />tatives something to go on. I am very much in accordance with it. <br />That point has been discussed before the Board on several occasions. <br />No rights are attained which will prevent the use of the water' up- <br />stream.1I <br /> <br />Mr. Pughe: "If you construct Echo Park and Cross Mountain, we would <br />have a priority shead of them?" <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein: IIThere are a number of lawyers who don't think it <br />is sufficiently broad." <br /> <br />Mr. Pughe: "How would it operate?" <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey: IITpis is to allow upstream developmentll. <br /> <br />Mr. Williams: <br /> <br />IIUpstream has :the priority". <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts: "The Bureau could claim that at the time of COllllOOnce- <br />ment, there would be a call not only upon the Colorado main stem but <br />upon the Yampa, Green and White. Every industrial use for shaJ.e de- <br />velopment that was constructed and made a water appropriation at a <br />later date could be shut down by Glen Canyon, unless this priority is <br />provided for. . We have to keep the door openll. <br /> <br />Mr. Pughe: "I think that is the way I understood it". <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts: "That is the theory. of it." <br />Mr. Williams: "Doesn't this change the Colorado law?;' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.