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 />$.,.1 <br /> <br />in it. Vie must have our program and be able to get it. An in- <br />definite postponement of this would mean receiving just ex~ctly <br />nothing. I feel that ever:;' effort has been made and can continue <br />to be made under the resolution that has been presented here to <br />compose the differences between the Eastern and Western part of <br />Colorado. Those efforts to compose differences can come within <br />the scope of determining the present terms upon which water is <br />available and what the burdens in connection with it may be. To <br />take out ,an approval of the Denver project to an indefinite future <br />is to take it clear out of the Bill and keep it out permanently. <br />If that is the case, it really makes it more difficult to continue <br />discussions. That is a closing of the door upon Denver being able <br />to satisfy i'ts water needs from the Western Slope. I feel that in <br />accepting any such indefinite postponement that we are asked to <br />commit ourselves to a program designed to bar Denver from having <br />that growth and that use of water. I think it would be a step <br />backward. I would be discrediting the Hill report and reversing <br />the very action that we have taken.1I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey: "Any other comments?" <br /> <br />- Mr. Pughe: "It looked all right to me. It does not look too bad <br />yet. I can see the objections from some of the Western slope who <br />are interested in preserving the integrity of the river. It has <br />been pointed out to me, and I think Mr. Dutcher's motion is all <br />right. If we could get Denver to withdraw for one or two years, <br />and set a specific date to get together after that time, we will <br />be able to work something out for Denver. With California's .op- <br />position tothe Denver diversion our plans may not bear any fruit <br />whatever. II <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein: "I would like to know what the source of that <br />information is. May I point out that there are two other trans- <br />mountain projects in this Bill. I see no reason at all why any <br />lower basin state would oppose any of them. I would like to know <br />what the source of -that information is." <br /> <br />Mr. Pughe: III am going to ask Mr. Peterson to tell you". <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson: liOn the Frying Pan-Arkansas, California made the <br />statement that it would oppose any further trans mountain diversion. <br />That brought up a point of the quality of waterll. <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts: "One of the biggest sections in Calif ornia that is <br />taking an interest in this river is taking water out of the basin <br />of the Colorado river. If we are going to protect that river out- <br />side its natural water shed, there is the place the biggest use of <br />water is being made." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher: IIThere is no reference to the State of California <br />that had any bearing whatsoever upon the decision that I made. <br />. 'So far as I a!l! concerned we are talking about something that does <br />not influence us. That is what I considered when I submitted this <br />amendment." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.