My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02250
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02250
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:13:54 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:12:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
8/6/1951
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.
/
32
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />of Nebraska representatives that any position which they took might later be used against <br />them. Nebraska indicated that it accepted the North Platte decree and would not seek <br />any changes therein. No State expressed disagreement with any of the details of the <br />Glendo Project which were described at some length by representatives of the Bureau~ <br />It was agreed th~t.another meeting on the Glendo Project would be held in Denver after <br />the completion of the Glendo report by the Bureau. Vfuile no definite date was fixed, <br />it was thought that the meeting would be held sometime in July, 1950. <br /> <br />The status of the Bureau's comprehensive study of the North Platte Basin was <br />presented at the meeting. Mr. Batson desired some expression from the States in regard <br />to his principles outlined in his letter to the State Governors. None of the States <br />wouJd in advance of the submission of the report make any commitments in regard to <br />those principles. Nebraska in particular was loath to take any position which might <br />be construed as binding upon it. Mr. Batson inquired as to whether or not future <br />meetings were desirable in advance of the completion of the basin-wide report. The <br />Nebraska people took thejDsition that no other meetings were necessary. I stated <br />that in II\}' opinion relations between the three States and the Bureau could be improved <br />by meetings at which there was a frank exchange of ideas and said that Colorado would <br />be glad to attend any meetings vmich Mr. Batson thought desirable. Mr. Bishop said that <br />he agreed with me and the Nebraska representatives then indicated a willingness to <br />attend whatever meetings might be called. No definite arrangement was made for any <br />meeting. Mr. Batson stated the matter could be considered further at the July meeting <br />on the Glendo project~ <br /> <br />On several different occasions I said that the restrictions on in-basin develop- <br />ment in Colorado should be removed from the decree. !!r. Bishop did not disagree,with <br />that statement and said that he tought that the provisions restricting water use in the <br />Wyoming ,area above Pathfinder shouldt~ eitlur removed or relaxed. No representative <br />from Nebraska made any statement whatsoever in regard to these restrictions. <br /> <br />I assume that you will Ylish me to attend the July meeting when it is called. Mr. <br />mildersleeve has two copies of the Bureau's statement'on the Glendo Unit and of the <br />Bureau's map which were presented to those attending the meeting. <br /> <br />Yours very truly, <br /> <br />/s/ Jean S. Breitenstein" <br /> <br />cc - John W. Metzger <br />George Bailey <br /> <br />"JEAN S. BREITENSTEIN <br />718 Symes Bldg. <br />Denver, Colorado <br /> <br />May 26 , 1951 <br /> <br />Hon. Clifford H. Stone, Director <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />212 State Office Bldg. <br />Denver, Colorado <br /> <br />Dear Judge Stone: <br /> <br />I have received the report on the Glenda Project and a copy of Mr. BRiley's <br />letter of 1~y 21 to Mr. Gildersleeve. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.