My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02109
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02109
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:12:09 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:10:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
6/15/1950
Description
Table of Contents, Minutes and Resolutions. Volumes I and II of Transcription of Meeting
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
250
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 />72 <br /> <br />report on the North Platte, there 1s little, if anything, that <br />oan be done; and hence, further consideration of the Glendo <br />matter was deferred pending the completion of that l'eport. <br />I believe that Mr. Batson might be able to amplify some <br />of my remarks as to the general situation. <br />HR. BATSON: I would l1ke toclar1fy that one pobt: <br />I th1nk there 1s a misunderstanding there. <br />We had scheduled a definite plan report as required in <br />the appropr1ation bill on the G-lendoqunit in the Kleseur1 Basin <br />project for completion by July first. We had also scheduled <br />the completion of the prel1m1narydraft of the comprehensive <br />plans of the North Platte River on July first. The letter that <br />I last sent out indicat1ng that we had not met those schedules <br />was to the effect that we hadn't completed the Dove Plan rea <br />port on the G-lendo project, and that there didn't appear to be <br />much purpose in discussing the Glendo further until that def~ <br />inite plan was in the hands of the representatives of the <br />state and they had an opportunity to review it. <br />At thill meeting, on March 20., 1 think it was, we dis- <br />c~s8ed the two plans of operation, one of Which would not <br />deplete the stream for irrigation purposes; the other wall a <br />plan that would. Each plan required the same facil1t1ell. <br />We laid before the representatives of the states the <br />proposi tion of a plan that wouldn't deplete the tlow of the <br /> <br />stream and changing the plans of operatione for future develop- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.