My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02425
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02425
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:15:20 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:15:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
10/31/1957
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.
/
34
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 />~Ul <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />a discussion was held on weather conditions, highway and <br />transportation facilities into the area, etc., which would <br />cause a delay of even more than the June, 1959 date. It <br />was concluded that by the State aiding in the amount of <br />$35,000 most of these reasons would be eliminated and the <br />report would have a more favorable chance of being ready <br />by January of 1959. <br /> <br />Mr. Larson explained why it would not be possible <br />to get this in the budget for 1958 and the procedure nec- <br />essary. The only possibility would be to have it included <br />on the floor of Congress and the concensu~ of opinion was <br />that this method was very difficult and stood little chance <br />of being done. <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: <br /> <br />"I move that we make $35,000 avail- <br />able to the Bureau of Reclamation for <br />the advancement of the Curecanti Project." <br /> <br />MR. NELSON: <br />MR. MOSES: <br /> <br />"Second the motion." <br /> <br />"Question." <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />"Question." <br /> <br />The motion was unanimously passed upon vote. <br /> <br />MR. CRAWFORD: <br /> <br />"I should like to ask if there are <br />available funds to complete the definite <br />plan report on the Paonia." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Larson discussed the Paonia Project, saying <br />that there is now $31,000 available but that another $15,000 <br />is needed and perhaps more if the Bureau has to make studies <br />on alternate plans, possibly one for cooperation with the <br />Grand Mesa Project. The question of whether or not Boulder <br />Canyon funds could be used was brought up but Mr. Larson ex- <br />plained why they could not. In answer to a question asked <br />by Dean Crawford concerning the possibility of delay due to <br />alternate dam studies involving the Grand Mesa Project, Mr. <br />Larson replied that there would be a delay because the cost <br />would be larger. Both Mr. Sparks and ~r. Peterson spoke for <br />the people most concerned in that area of the State, empha- <br />sizing that they want the Paonia Project to go ahead as is <br />and make the Grand Mesa Project an entirely separate unit. <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: <br /> <br />"I would like to move that this Board <br />go on record as officially requesting <br />that the facilities of the Paonia Project <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.