My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02033
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02033
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:10:20 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:08:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/8/1963
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.
/
100
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. DELANEY: <br /> <br />"I have a few suggestions. Mr. Chairman <br />and members of this Board, this resolution, <br />presented by the Colorado River Water Conserva- <br />tion District, has been a matter of some concern <br />to me. I confess that I sat in at the Board <br />meeting, listened to the deliberations, and was <br />a party, I presume, to the drafting of the reso- <br />lution. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />If you will pardon me, I want to go into a <br />little background in order to illustrate the <br />suggestions I am going to make. In October and <br />November of 1962, I was called upon to review <br />six or seven hundred pages of testimony that had <br />been presented by other attorneys in adjudication <br />proceedings pending in Routt and Grand counties. <br />Years ago, as you probably know, I had been <br />somewhat aptive in water matters and I thought <br />I knew something about the basis upon which the <br />Colorado-Big Thompson project had been author- <br />ized and the purposes attempted to be served by <br />a document that everybody recognizes as Senate <br />Document No. 80, and probably none of us are <br />exactly sure exactly what was contemplated by <br />that document. But in the course of reviewing <br />this testimony I found that it was proposed to <br />divert water by a very complicated scheme from <br />tributaries of the Yampa River in and around <br />Steamboat Springs and those waters were to be <br />exported into the North Platte Basin in Jackson <br />County and then, by a system of exchange, water <br />was to be taken back into the Colorado Basin <br />and carried to eastern Colorado by means of the <br />Adams Tunnel and the facilities of the Colorado- <br />Big Thompson Project. <br /> <br />Negotiations on that matter had reached a <br />point where a preliminary contract had been I <br />reached between the Bureau of Reclamation, <br />represented by Region 7, and the proponent of <br />the project--not a municipality, not a public - <br />agency, but a private corporation. To me that <br />posed a very definite threat to the performance <br />or recognition of agreements evidenced by Senate <br />Document No. 80 and other negotiations which had <br />taken effect because it seemed to me that if <br />there were other parties to the agreement at that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.