My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02242
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02242
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:13:50 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:12:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/17/1962
Description
Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
137
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 />~/O~ <br /> <br />MR. lWIPER: <br /> <br />"There are two items in this report - <br />and I might point out that at the last session <br />I sat in with the people working out the word- <br />ing on this and did not object to them at the <br />time, but after some more mature consideration <br />and after talking with other people as well - <br />under item #1 in establishing the priority of <br />uses, these are the uses which the water use <br />in Colorado is based on and it's essentially <br />the priority of use that is under our Consti- <br />tution. I have no quarrel with them, particu- <br />larly as they relate to Colorado, but this is <br />national legislation and in attempting to <br />impose a priority of uses which are good for <br />Colorado on the entire nation, we are attempt- <br />ing then to establish an imposition which is <br />not necessarily the sarne priority of use whiCh <br />is best for other regions of the united States. <br />I think this is a very important matter. <br />However, it appears to me that this is more a <br />matter for regional determination and a <br />determination probably by the conunissions, <br />either river basin conunissions or regional <br />conunissions established, so this is not shoved <br />down their throats. For example, if we get <br />into the State of Louisiana, they are not <br />particularly interested in irrigation which <br />we give an extremely high priority. They want <br />to establish a different priority for irri- <br />gation itself. Now all of these will enter <br />in, but I think the order of priority should <br />be a matter for the regions to determine. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The only other item is one relating to <br />the land use. If land use is inferred in <br />this bill to mean all of the public lands, <br />well then, certainly it should be eliminated. <br />However, it's extremely difficult for me to <br />see how you can work out the use of water <br />without considering related land uses, regard- <br />less of what it is. You've got to have some <br />land somewhere to use it on and practically <br />all of the resources which depend on water for <br />their development have some connection with the <br />land. Those are the only two things I'd like <br />to bring to the attention of this group in es- <br />tablishing policy and that is, as to how much <br />detail we should go into in a national water <br />policy. <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.