My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03626
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03626
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:51:19 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:53:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/30/1922
Author
Co. R Compact Comm.
Title
Minutes of Colorado Compact Commission - Meeting #7
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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 />131 131 <br /> <br />City of Denver is included in that figure (1,825,000) The develop_ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />mont of small enterprises should be included in those figures; We <br /> <br />. foel frankly that we are inclined to insist that it be very liberal <br /> <br />in view of the fact that we feel that tho water supply feature is <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />entitled to consideration from our ond of it; Of all the Statos <br /> <br />that furnish much and get little, we are that stato. You tako our <br /> <br />'neighboring states -- the consummation of water within their do- <br /> <br />main is entirely out of proportion to Colorado. I am put to a <br /> <br />rather embarrassing position on some of those matters of limit- <br /> <br />ation. <br /> <br />HR, NORVillL: I do not think the Commissionors ought to take <br /> <br />it that this is an ultimate limitation but that it is trying to <br /> <br />strike a biillanco. vIe have taken Dirootor Davis' figures as the <br /> <br />possible acreage irrigable in the Statos and havo not attempted <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />to limit the states, but that when this acreage has been reached, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />a larger acreage might be allocated, It seems to me that this is <br />all <br />something we might agree/on \-lith equanimity. <br /> <br />HR, CARPENTER; I "ould most certainly object to a condition <br /> <br />IIProvided'that adequate storago be croated at ono of the major <br /> <br />dam sites in the Grand Canyon.1I If you aro going to put that in, <br /> <br />it will be hopoless to get approval from my country, unless you <br /> <br />put in a provision for construction of dams elsewhore. 'I think <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />tho construction of thoselo,lor dams is primarily the concern of <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the lower area, It is their responsibility and their profit. I <br /> <br />mean by that that the benefits to run from their construction <br /> <br /> <br />should run primarily to the States in ldhich they are located. <br /> <br />W. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.