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 />44 <br /> <br />/ <br />rights dOln1stream that would injure the future of Colorado projects. \~cat- <br /> <br />ever the various motivations, however, all five states and the federal chair- <br /> <br />man did produce an effective compact that guaranteed specific allocations <br /> <br />of the flow of the Colorado to each state? and allowed for the continuing <br /> <br />development of the whole Upper Basin. <br /> <br />It cannot be denied that the state? of Colorado anc its representatives <br /> <br />did serve as leaders in Meeting Five. Stone and Breitenste?in certainly rea- <br /> <br />lized their state's unique physical pcsition in the Upper Basin and that <br /> <br />Colorado's dominance of both contributions to and use? of the river would <br /> <br />afford them a great deal of influence in t11e Commission. In Meeting Five <br /> <br />they used their influence to turn a large number of their own concerns into <br /> <br />motions and eventually into provisions of the compact. Sc.me of theSe? provisions <br /> <br />were obviOUSly meant to address concerns and allay fears of the people of Colo- <br /> <br />rado that they were there in 1946-1948 to represent. Tt,e long discussions and <br /> <br />defense of home interests such as the C-BT and the plight of Moffat County in <br /> <br />the face of the propcsed Echo Park dam are examples. <br /> <br />Yet to underst,md the proceedings of Mooting Fi vo in torms of the larger <br /> <br />context of western water development requires a view of this meeting and the <br /> <br />UCRBCC as a CUlmination and part of many historical forces acting within Colorado, <br /> <br />the West, and the United States as a whole. It was the national goal of reclam- <br /> <br />ation and the Bureau of Reclamation's involvement in constructing increasingly <br /> <br />large projects on the rivers of the West that ushered in the "era of florescence" <br /> <br />in western water development to which Donald Worster refers. TIle entrance and <br /> <br />increased participation of the federal government in the endeavor of exercising <br /> <br />"businesslilce control" of natural resources such as the Colorado River, then, <br /> <br />catalyzed the process of hydroelectric and agricultural development in the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.