Laserfiche WebLink
<br />34 <br /> <br />established within Colorado around this time. O~e of these was from the Laramie <br /> <br />River to the Cache La Poudre Valley in 1882. In l891 the Skyline Ditch, recognized <br /> <br />as a valid a~propriation in 1922, was under construction. In 1894 the Grand <br /> <br />River Ditch brought water from the Colorado River across the Continental Divide <br />122 <br />to the East slope. Thus, Stone and Breitenstein knew of a number of court <br /> <br />cases and actual projects that in 1948 could be cited to su~port the historic <br /> <br />legality and legitimacy of transmountain diversions. TIle Colorado delegates <br /> <br />also felt that present diversions such as the C-BT had similar rights that <br /> <br />should not be suspended simplY because they were classified as transmountain <br /> <br />diversions. <br /> <br />The C-BT came up in discussion in a different context aJain in Meeting <br /> <br />Five as Bishop again demonstrated his apparent distrust of Colorado's intentions. <br /> <br />TIle issue resurfaced when Bishop read his list of the specific factors that <br /> <br />the state of Wyoming wanted the Commission to consider in forming a compact. <br /> <br />After listing these factors, he inserted what he said "is not a factor, I <br /> <br />suppose, but our,people want the Commission to Icnow that we feel that unless <br /> <br />a compact is negotiated no projects should be allowed or appropriations made <br /> <br />for a ccntinuation of any projects until there is a compact between the states <br /> <br />h U B' 123 <br />of t e pper aSln." <br /> <br />This wculd mean that if a compact were not negotiated <br /> <br />and signed soon, any project under construction would be ineligible to receive <br /> <br />any further financial appropriations to continue its construction. Bishop's <br /> <br />obvious reference was to the C-BT, which was nearing its final stages of <br /> <br />construction. <br /> <br />Stone said that the suspension of construction and contracts for such a <br /> <br />large project would result in a situation where either the water users served by <br /> <br />that construction or the United States taxpayers would pay an uncalled-for penalty <br /> <br />---~-.. <br />