My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02138
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02138
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:12:44 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:11:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/11/1963
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.
/
93
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 />.:l::>l::ll::l <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. MC CANDLESS: <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: <br /> <br />MR.. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: <br /> <br />available water. Now I don't know whether that's <br />true or not." <br /> <br />"This proposal that has been submitted to us <br />was as a result of my protest about the Elliott <br />diversion. As yet, no plan has ever been pre- <br />sented to us for analysis in connection with the <br />Elliott diversion. I think we will consistently <br />take the view that we must oppose it until such <br />time as we have had an opportunity to review it." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"Of course, this proposal that Elliott now <br />has is different from this Mitchell affair because <br />this water is sold and he proposes to take some <br />water that is not committed, as I understand it." <br /> <br />"Vle understand that to be the correct case <br />but, as I say, nothing has been submitted to us <br />in connection with the Elliott proposal. It <br />stands now as an indefinite proposal as far as <br />we are concerned. And my original objection that <br />I voiced to Washington still stands. Until such <br />time as the proposal is submitted to us, we cannot <br />approve. <br /> <br />As a result of that, we were invited to com- <br />ment upon this Fort.Collins proposal and we <br />consider this to be an entirely different matter. <br />It's not a matter over which this Board has any <br />jurisdiction." <br /> <br />"Now let me clarify this from your remarks. <br />We are opposed, as a matter of policy, to any of <br />these contracts with the Bureau. This is our <br />policy. Now, you are recommending in the last <br />sentence, that having reviewed this you want our <br />Board's approval of this since it doesn't violate <br />anything we are doing. Is that correct?" <br /> <br />"That's essentially it." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman." <br /> <br />"Mr. Peterson." <br /> <br />"I would like to move that inasmuch as the <br />staff of the Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.