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 />36 <br /> <br />Colorado delegation remained dedicated to assuring that it be the ultimate <br /> <br />responsibility of the state itself to meet its obligations, not that of any <br /> <br />particular project, tributary, or drainage basin. Tt,is concept of state sover- <br /> <br />eignty also implied that neither the federal government nor the authority of <br /> <br />the Upper Colorado River Commission could instruct a state as to what it would <br /> <br />do with its water, even in times of shortage. Breitenstein and Stone's insistence <br /> <br />upon states' rights shows a continuum from Kansas v. COlorado and Wyoming v. <br /> <br />Colorado, when Colorado's defense used similar arguments in defense of its irr- <br /> <br />igators. <br /> <br />From various comments made by the Colorado delegation in the record of the <br /> <br />Commission one can infer that the Colorado delegation, especially Commissioner <br /> <br />Stone, had a reputation in western water circles as firm supporters of states' <br /> <br />rights in the American federal system. Breitenstein himself, "hile pointing <br /> <br />out Commissioner BiShop'S seemingly ambiguous stance on federal vs. state authority <br /> <br />in the Upper Basin, made <br />I drn' 1 127 <br />man. a lt t1at." <br /> <br />clear his own stance by saying: "I am a states right <br /> <br />Ccmmissioner Stone, as a well-known and respected authority <br /> <br />on western water, must have also come into the Commission in 1946 well-knolfl1 as <br /> <br />a supporter of state sovereignty. He published an article in 1952 in the Rocky <br /> <br />Mountain La" Revie" in which he takes this stance. Vltile obviously it I~S written <br /> <br />four years after the Upper Basin compact was signed, he mal<es a reference to <br /> <br />a precedent fer state power set in 1944 that must have influenced his stance <br /> <br />in 1947. This reference is to the 1944 Flood Control Act "hich, as he writes <br /> <br />in 1952, "recognizes the rights and interests of the states in the federal pro- <br /> <br />grams of water development." Tt,e Flood Control Act does stipulate that states <br /> <br />as sovereigns do have these interests and rights within their borders regarding <br /> <br />water development, a~d that Congress must recognize these rights. It was Stone's <br /> <br />...:.-.....- _.~"'""~~...,,~.. _. --.,~...... <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.