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 />32 <br /> <br />Meeting Five he stated that Wyoming thought it was "morally wrong" to talce <br /> <br />f 'h" d d h ' 115 <br />water rom a baSln w en lt lS nee e t ereln. <br /> <br />Wyoming's recent history <br /> <br />warned its citizens of Colorado's potential to "largely or entirely deprive <br /> <br />Wyoming,,116 of Laramie water through its transmountain diversions. In 1947 <br /> <br />Bishop must have perceived a necessity to restrain present and future trans- <br /> <br />mountain diversions to avert potential disaster for Wyoming's water users. <br /> <br />Bisho;:> claimed that it was the "insistence of some of the Upper Basin <br /> <br />representatives on the Colorado River Compact Commission" that transmountain <br /> <br />diversions be permitted that caused the Lower Basin to insist on receiving <br /> <br />75 million acre-foot deliveries every ten years. Bishop saw this as a destruc- <br /> <br />tive mistal,e that might someday cripple Upper Basin potential development. <br /> <br />He then made some propositions that he thought should be included in the 1948 <br /> <br />compact to avert further disaster. <br /> <br />Bishop's first proposition was that the compact dictate that not more than <br /> <br />twenty-five percent of each state's allocation be permitted to leave the Colorado's <br /> <br />natural basin. His second proposition was that the compact provide for a closing <br /> <br />of transmountain diversions whose water would be needed in dry years to help <br /> <br />117 <br />meet the Upper Basin's required deliveries to Lee Ferry. Bishop also stated <br /> <br />that his own opinion was that all transmountuin diversions would be shut off <br /> <br />in such cases. HE specificallY mentions the C-BT as a misguided project that <br />118 <br />might cause shortages in deliveries to Lee Ferry. <br /> <br />TI1ese proposals drew strong opposition from Commissioner Stone of Colorado, <br /> <br />prompting him to ask whether it is any business of one state how another uses its <br /> <br />allotment, as long as obligations are Kept and water delivered as promised by each <br /> <br /> <br />state.119 Stone asserted that it is the affair of Colorado, and not of the <br /> <br />Commission, as to whether or not it would incorporate transmountain diversions <br /> <br />Z".', 7''':-~~<;,;''-''.'"'..;HI <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.