My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02551
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02551
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:16:59 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:17:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
8/11/1965
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.
/
71
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 />GOVERNOR LOVE: <br /> <br />GOVERNOR JOHNSON: <br /> <br />GOVERNOR LOVE: <br /> <br />I,m. SPARKS: <br /> <br />NR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />either. That storage must be there. Not <br />only to take care of the needs in the Upper <br />Basin but under the Sparks' interpretation, <br />to take care of the annual deliveries at Lee <br />Ferry of the 75,000,000 overall obligation." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"!-lay I ask a question there? Clarifica- <br />tion in my o\~ mind, to m~,e an extreme of <br />it, our obligation is a ten-year running <br />obligation as far as at least one section <br />of the compact is concerned. Theoretically, <br />if we had delivered in the last ten years, <br />or the last nine years, far in excess of <br />75,000,000 'fe would not be obligated under <br />one section of the compact to deliver any if <br />we had the method to divert and use it. Isn't <br />this correct, first? <br /> <br />But then, if you go beyond that, if I <br />understand what you are saying, the section <br />which deals with the obligation to Mexico <br />does not fall within this ten-year period. <br />The obligation to ~~xico is purely on an <br />annual basis. Is that right?" <br /> <br />"Right, that's the way I interpret it." <br /> <br />"I just wanted to make sure." <br /> <br />"Governor Johnson is entirely correct. <br />The only way we can keep up with the 75,000,000 <br />is to hold it right at 7~ million every year. <br />This is the only way it can possibly be done. <br />We get no credit for over-deliveries. So <br />each year starts another ten-year period. <br />vle must average it out, as close as it can <br />possibly be done." <br /> <br />"No", to get into the discussion of the <br />meat of the proposed bill, I'd like to know <br />what the time schedule is, ~,hat are the re- <br />quirements, who is introducing it, and so <br />forth. Maybe you can go into that type of <br />background before we go into the specifics <br />of what you are trying to do." <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.