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 />43 <br /> <br />provision into the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact: <br /> <br />any signatory state...shall have the right to acquire <br />such property rights as are necessary to the use of <br />water in conformity with this compact in any other <br />signatory state by donation, purchase, or throu~h <br />the exercise of the power of cminent domain. 14 <br /> <br />Again, as I.as the case for the issue of compensation for submerged lands, the <br /> <br />UCRBCC followed the Colorado delegation's advice to look to the Republican <br /> <br />River Compact as a guide, this time regarding the issue of eminent domain. <br /> <br />Tbe fact that the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 ended up using <br /> <br />much of thc same wording included in the Republican Rivcr Compact indicates <br /> <br />the influcnce that Commissioner Stone had .in getting these provisions incorp- <br /> <br />orated as he suggested in Mecting Five. It is also a furthcr indication that <br /> <br />the negotiating process between 1946 and 1948 was Ilcavily influenced by the <br /> <br />ideas and suggestions of the Colorado delegation. <br /> <br />Such influence of Stone and Breitenstein was dcmonstrated in many parts <br /> <br />of the record of Meeting Five and of the ot11er meetings of the Commission, as <br /> <br />well. This is not to say that the Colorado delegation dominated the proceedings <br /> <br />discussing their mill concerns and pushing their Olill provisions into the compact. <br /> <br />The commissioners and advisors from the other states also presented the special <br /> <br />interests of their respective states forcefully and effectively. Tbroughout the <br /> <br />deliberations of Meeting Five (at least on the record) there was a sense of <br /> <br />decorum and mutual consideration among the commissioners that facilitated the <br /> <br />quicJ< signing of a compact that each state, albeit for different reasons, desired. <br /> <br />Some degree of fear was a motivating factor to reach a settlement: Wyoming that <br /> <br />Colorado would "use every possible drop" of the Colorado River, Colorado that <br /> <br />the recent developments in the Lower Basin and Mexico mig11t establish prior <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.