My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01982
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD01982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:09:37 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:06:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/30/1976
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, 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.
/
64
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 />MR. KROEGER: What about the divisien of 'the waters between Ce10rado <br />and New Mexice? That is ef state interest, even theugh it happens to. <br />be their water. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: That is correct. If it gets down to a matter of an inter- <br />state suit between Celorado and New Mexico., ,Celorado will beceme <br />involved, whether it's CFI o.r Jane Doe. We den't care who. the parties <br />are. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Is that the answer yo.u're looking fer? <br /> <br />MR. ADKINS: Tha,t' s ,the answer I want. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: Just for the record, I would like to. state that the <br />Attorney General has been in close contact with counsel for CFI in this <br />case, as has been Mr. Sparks and Mr. Sherman. We are staying with the <br />matter. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Unless I hear ebjectien, we'll meve to. item six which is <br />the consultant's repert. ' <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: Thank yeu, Mr. Kreeger. 'In light ef the lateness ef the. <br />heur and the patience of the audience, 1'11 make this shert. Since the <br />last meeting, I attended a meeting of the Colorado River Commission at <br />Jackson, .'Wyoming, and the Western States Water CeunciLin~M01.i.tana. <br />. , <br /> <br />There's been one legal deve I epment that I think many of you <br />may know about, but which I think is of interest. . That is the decision <br />ef the Fourth Circuit Federal Ceurt, in a case entitled Appalachian <br />Power Cempany against Train, with a three 'judge court, one of whom was <br />Judge Br~itenstein. The court directed the EPA to censider the wisdom <br />ef the use of-water in a water-short area fer'envirenmental:purposesas <br />epposed to a slight temperature raise ef an'onstream lake which involved <br />an electric power plant. It's the-first glimmer that I've seen where <br />court asked EPA to. weigh the economic advantages and disadvantages ef <br />one scarce resource against another, and even suggested that perhaps' <br />regulations which might be applicable in North-Carolina might not be <br />equally apprepriate in the West. I think this is a heartening decision. <br /> <br />I've been asked to present my views concerning the so-called Kennedy <br />bill hearing on August 10, and time permitting, I hope to get some <br />remarks available which I can submit to. the Director. I think it's an <br />opportunity ,to help clarify some ef the features ef the Kennedy bill <br />which I find particularly distul1bing. The Kennedy bill would in <br />essence appropriate funds for the acquisitien of water rights by I <br />Indians and weu1d give the Secretary power'of eminent domain'and would <br />net require that he comply with state laws in the transfer ef these <br />water rights. I have no ebjection if it's the will ef the Cengress to <br />make some grant to the Indians as far as water rights are concerned <br />and to. do it with public funds if Cengress wants to. de it that way. , <br />I'm deeply disturbed about the use of pewer of eminent domain to supply <br />those water rights. l'm even more deeply disturbed about the provision <br /> <br />-56- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.