Laserfiche WebLink
<br />45 <br /> <br />Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />The Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Colorado River Basin <br />Compact of 1948 wcrc historically significant stek'S in the dcvelopment of <br /> <br />the Colorado River inasmuch as they were products of a need to define more <br /> <br />specifically the water rights of tl1e Colorado River Basin; first in terms of <br />the Upper and Lo"er Divisions, and next in tellmS of individual states. In <br />this florescent era the state of Colorado always had a significant, if con- <br /> <br />troversial role. The Kansas v. Colorado case and the various Wyoming v. <br /> <br />Colorado cases placed Colorado on the defense, accused of being an antagonist <br /> <br />to the goal of an equitable division of western water. In shoving his distrust <br />of Colorado intentions in Meeting Five of tIle UCRBCC, Wyoming's Commissioner <br />Bishop demonstrated his lmmHedge of Colorado's past and his apprehensions <br />about how its future might detrimentally affect Wyoming as a state with less <br />current potential for development. The potcmtial of projects such as the C-BT <br />perhaps understandably frightened those who had a smaller stal<e in Colorado <br />River \{ater but vho sent Commissioners to the UCRBCC in 1946 to guarantee <br />their share for future development. In a sense, Stone and Breitenstein had a <br /> <br />dual role in that they had to allay these fears of a Colorado monopolization <br /> <br />of the river \{hile still asserting their state's dominant role in the Upper <br />Basin. Their prominence as representatives in Meeting Five is most important <br /> <br />as a step in the continuum of Colorado's historically crucial role as both <br /> <br />leader and antagonist in western water development. <br />