My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02022
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:10:03 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:07:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/11/1959
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.
/
72
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,.w/O <br /> <br />report; and second are the appendices. <br />The text, as has been stated by Mr. <br />Barkley, will be couched in language <br />which, for example, as far as engineers <br />are concerned we laymen can understand <br />and so far as engineers are concerned, <br />as to the legal aspects, they, as laymen, 1 <br />will understand, and those who are not <br />trained in either field will be able to <br />follow. The appendices will contain the <br />detailed technical data. For example, <br />I wouldn't like for this report from Mr. <br />McClellan consisting of several pages <br />to find its way into the text and have <br />to be waded through in reaching your <br />final conclusion. <br /> <br />So far as the first part of this <br />report is concerned, the historical analy- <br />sis and the factual background, there <br />will be little, if any, change from the <br />preliminary report. Possibly some few <br />additions. Governor Johnson has suggested <br />some changing in wording which he thinks <br />strengthens it and that will be incor- <br />porated.in it. Possibly some other ob- <br />servations may be included. That will <br />be decided as we dictate it. For exam- <br />ple, in digressing a little, I became <br />interested to know why the State of Colo- <br />rado, through its Water Conservation <br />Board, so strongly supported the Boulder <br />Canyon Project Adjustment Act. Now ap- <br />parently California's dontention is <br />somewhat based upon the. conclusion that <br />the Boulder Canyon Project AdJustment <br />Act required some broadening of the <br />authority of the Secretary of the In- <br />terior to enter into these power con- <br />tracts. So I read the_.proceedings be- <br />fore the Insular and Interior Affairs <br />Committee in 1939, at which proceedings <br />Judge Stone appeared and testified, as <br />did also representatives of the other <br />basin states and there was unanimity of 1 <br />agreement among them. Colorado, inci- <br />dentally, supported it largely because <br /> <br />thetPfrojdectt Act seti utP a riivter devellop- . <br />men un 0 come n 0 ex s ence on y <br />after Hoover Dam cost was entirely paid <br />off, which might be fifty or seventy- <br />five ~ears hence, and we didn't want <br />to wait that long to find out what could <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.