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 />3S <br /> <br />of millions of dollars. Commissioner Bishop's reply is indicative of his <br /> <br />apprehensions that Colorado's intention I,as to continue developing grand <br /> <br />projects at other states' expenses: "Judge Stone, if the representatives of <br /> <br />Colorado realized that !;as going to happen they might be more interested in <br /> <br />getting a compact." <br /> <br />Finally when Stone challenged Bishop to give any reason why Colorado would <br /> <br />not be interested in getting a compact, Bishop replied that if Colorado contin- <br /> <br />ued at its present rate of depletions it will have used every possible drop of <br />124 <br />water that it could and Hyoming "!;on't have used any water." Bishop also <br /> <br />sU9gested that Colorado as a big state might have less of an interest in securing <br /> <br />a quiCk compact than Wyoming did as a small state. After Stone attempted to <br /> <br />allay Bishop's apparent distrust of Colorildo "ater users by assuring him that <br /> <br />all of the states should work in a "mutuZlny helpfUl m'lnner", Bishop replied: <br /> <br />We <lant to help you, Judge, but <Ie !;ant you to help <br />us. We need your help much more than you need ours, <br />as <Ie have only one representative in tlle_Congress of <br />the United States and you have several. 1LS <br /> <br />Bi@lOp felt that Colorado could use these representatives to push their own <br /> <br />projects through while blocking those of Wyoming. The C-BT was, after all, <br /> <br /> <br />passed by unanimous consent in the Senate in 1937.126 <br /> <br />The issue of the "morality" of transmountain diversions and Colorado's <br /> <br />insistence upon its right to have projects such as the C-BT is only an example <br /> <br />of the larger argument for states' rights that Stone and Breitenstein made <br /> <br />throughout Meeting Five. States only using a small percentage of the Ufpcr <br /> <br />Basin allocation mi.ght understandably want a stronger interstate compact created <br /> <br />that would protect their interests and assist them in times of shortage. TIley also <br /> <br />might fear an overuse of \-.ater by Colorado, as Wyoming seemed to fear. Yet the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.