My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09274
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09274
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:52:26 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:33:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.110.60
Description
Colorado River Water Users Association
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
5/1/1947
Author
CRWUA
Title
Proceedings of the 1947 Conference
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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 />MRo ROLLINS" Ivfr" President, wouldn"t it b\~ rather <br />presumpt.uous 011\ our part to try t,~ say what anyone Stare, is entitled <br />to until som~ formula ha,s been devised which will In'ovid", al'!\ equitable <br />division, as near as can be detelC'lnined. For <,xample, Mr. President, <br />you said New Mexico has x'cceived t.hrough other sources the.5% to whhh <br />they are entitled. How do we kncJ'w, in the final analysis, but that they <br />may be given more than 50/0. <br /> <br />'-. <br /> <br />CHAIRMAN; Any increase in New Mexico will mean <br />cutting down some other State. If they provide 5% of the water in the <br />stream, it doesn't look fair that they should draw out more than that <br />because it would have to be at the expen!!e of some other State. <br /> <br />MR. ROLLINS: If you hold to that idea exclusively, how <br />much water would Ca1i~ornia and Arizona be entitled to "/ <br /> <br />CHAIRMANg That's under the compact. and absolutely <br />apart from the division of the water in the Upper Basin States 0 They beat <br />us to that and they have the Colorado Compact drawn up, and it is legislation, <br />and we can't say anything about that. The difficulty is, just as I say, if they <br />would allocate to us more than 1 S%, we couldn't get it up there in the State <br />anyway, <br /> <br />MR, ROLLINS; The point I wish to make is, until the <br />Upper Basin States have sat around the table, as in the Boulder Canyon <br />Act, and make the compact, we won't know whether New Mexico is to get <br />5% or 15%, or Colorado 35 or 45% -,~no way of knowing. <br /> <br />. CHAIRMANg The Green River Basin country says that <br />the first thing to alloaate is the debt. How is each State going to pay on the <br />debt at Lee Ferry. and after that, anyone of the States will be perfectly <br />willing to allow any other State to have the excess, I mean the main thing <br />is going to be to pay this debt, and that ought to be settled first before you <br />divide the water. Pay your debts, and then you,can divide the liqu.id assets, <br /> <br />MR. ROLI..INSg <br /> <br />That's not the way Congress is working, <br /> <br />MR. SANDBERG: Mr. President, hasn't the time been set <br />when the Upper Division is to get together and determine the allocation? <br /> <br />CHAIRMAN; <br /> <br />How many meetings have they had, Melvin? <br /> <br />MR. ROLLINS: They had about three general meetings and, <br />of course, the committees have been m.eeting frequently, particularly the <br />Engineering Committee, I can't say how many meetings they held, <br /> <br />CHAIRMAN: I'll say the whole bone of contention is, <br />they are afraid to say how much we are going to pay at Lee Ferry, When <br />that's settled, why you have settled the question of the division of water, <br /> <br />..3'1~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.