BOARD02033

• Board Meeting Date: 5/8/1963
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

MR. BURR:

MR. STAPLETON:

MR. BURR:

MR. STAPLETON:

MR. PETERSON:
MR. STAPLETON:
I MR. PETERSON:
MR. STAPLETON:
MR. PETERSON:

are setting a precedent. I think there is a
difference between the two situations in that
one of them has a decree, although it's condi-
tional, and the other one does not have a
decree. Whether that is enough difference to
keep it from setting a precedent, I don't know,
but I think there is that difference."

"Mr. Chairman."

"Mr. Burr."

"I agree that the conditional decree was not
granted but that's the same procedure that the
Homestake Ditch went through. After it went
through the Supreme Court it was granted. So
we don't want to lose sight of the fact that it
could happen. It is a little different at the
present time but the Homestake Ditch at one
time was turned down in the local courts and
now they've got their decree and are being
financed by the municipality. I'm interested,
of course, in another transrnountain diversion
and the Four Counties Ditch and Mr. Elliott and
his fantastic ideas. I just don't want to give
him a foothold. I'm not interested in it."

"I think all we can do really is to go on
the statement made in I>1r. Knights' letter which
was quoted at the beginning of this memorandum.
I think that's the clearest expression we have
on the point at this time."

"Mr. Chairman."

"Mr. Peterson."

"I'd like to take exception to a statement
by the Chairman, if I may."

"Go right ahead."

"It's true that we have always tabled reso-
lutions that have come in at a meeting until
they could be studied for further action but I
don't think at any ,time we have delayed setting
up a fact-finding group. This doesn't call for