BOARD02242 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2780 MR. STAPLETON: MR. KUIPER: ?>~'; , that positive thing which I agree with Mr. Miller we somewhat overlooked in our wording. But I do believe that the State of Colorado, being as it is a leader in western water law and western water development, should make a positive declaration of general policy but in terms so general that the specific language changes can be worked out in great detail as has just here been suggested, by some appropriate committee of this Board and its staff." I "What's the situation on hearings?" "The last conference I had with Congressman Aspinall on congressional actions are this: that (this introduces another subject that's on the agenda) the most immediate thing we must be concerned with is the Wilderness Bill and not this bill. The Wilderness Bill - he told me, we should be ready for firm comments on in the area of January 20th. That this will come up at some later date and has not been scheduled. I think perhaps that Judge Conour's sugges- tion would work out very well, and if I understand Glenn right, the thing we could - and I believe we should do at this time - do is to support the principle of this bill and acquaint Congressman Aspinall certainly with that. Now as to whether we could go so far at this time as to endorse the public announcement he has made as to what the bill should and should not accomplish, I think that's something we should give some consideration. Now as to the detailed language, I think Glenn is absolutely right, that this is going to take a lot of study and that the study must be channel- ed to carrying out the things that this Board feels should be accomplished by this legislation. I So I think we should take some action, some affirmative action today. It seems to be the general concensus, I think, of everybody that's spoken at least, that the objectives of this bill are good and we are in agreement with those. It's just the implementation of these objectives that are questionable at this time."