My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12076
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSP12076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:19:48 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:22:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.B
Description
Upper Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1991
Author
Paul Upsons
Title
A Leader and Antagonist: Historical Forces Leading to Colorado's Influnce in Meeting Five of the Upper Colorado River Compact Commission (Honors Thesis for U. of Denver History Dept)
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.
/
52
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 />16 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />make it difficult to determine obligations of the Upper basin to deliver "ater <br /> <br />to Lee Ferry in the dry years when nature did not provide enough precipitation <br /> <br />wmake it possible to make the required deliveries. The possibility of <br />61 <br />Wrj years, in fact, is not given mention in the compact. <br /> <br />TI& Colorado River Compact did not eliminate all causes of contention or <br /> <br />apprehension, either. Some pre-1922 fears \lere not allayC'd by the signing of <br /> <br />the compact, and some ne\./ fears arose after 1922. \'lith the increasing involve- <br /> <br />ment of the Bureau of RC'clamation in western water devC'lopment, there was a <br /> <br />; <br /> <br />continuing fear of federal assertion of claims to the Colorado River. Tt,e threat <br /> <br />of an overly generous treaty with Nexico became greatC'r after 1922. The Upper <br /> <br />Basin also still feared California's increasing use of the Calorado. Compounded <br /> <br />with these factors, the Bureau of Reclamation in 1935 subni tted a report on the <br /> <br />Cl:lorado River Basin which presented a pessimistic view of the feasibility of <br /> <br />enough water for all of the proposed projects for future development being made <br /> <br />. b 62 <br />avalla Ie. <br /> <br />All of these fears and pessimism combined to make it more obvious <br /> <br />that the Colorado River Compact was flawed in not having the provisions to allow <br /> <br />for a planned series of future projects according to specific allocations of <br /> <br />Colorado River wa ter to each state. <br /> <br />Ar:other Bureau of Reclamation study in 1946 also pointed out the lac), of ,,rater <br /> <br />for all of the proposed projects, and until the upper states specifically det- <br /> <br />ermined their individual rights to the 7.5 million acre-foot share that they <br /> <br /> <br />collectively held the Bureau would not approve any further projects.63 Colorado <br /> <br />had a special interest in establiShing a guaranteed level of water supply, as <br /> <br />Congress in 1937 approved the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, a plan to divert <br /> <br />Colorado River water out of its natural basin to farms and cities along the <br /> <br />Eastern slope of Colorado. In view of Colorado's expansive plans, the less dev- <br /> <br />eloped states such as Wyoming would also desire a guarantee of their specific <br /> <br />....;..';:- -~, <br /> <br />-~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.