WSPC12821 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'-. L ~~<. .. -2- The President's Water Resources Policy Commission is charged \Yith considering policies related to Federal participation in water development; it is not concerned with water matters and policies of an intrastate nature, except insofar as they may indirectly affect the Federal interest. However, I deemed it advisable to call the Commission's attention to the above-mentioned State policy, but did not go into detail by quoting or citing particular statutes. I believed the statement which I made was sufficient to apprise the Commission of the nature of this State policy. There certainly was no intent to disavow, or deviate from, the principles which underlie the 1943 amendment of the 1937 Conservanay District Act. In this whole matter, there is an over-riding consideration which cannot be ignored. It concerns the general welfare of the State of Colorado and its people, both on the West Slope and Bast Slope of the Continental Divide. :r hava often stated it :i,n this way, without any ~ispositipn to ignore the above-mentioned policy as to exportation of water from the natl,U"al basin of the Colorado River, namely: That the most tragic thing which could happen to the State of Colorado in the development of its basic water resource would be to engage in a long-continued intrastate controversy which would pre- vent appreciable development on either slope. In the end, the best protection of water from the point of view of interstate interests, as well as among indi vidual water users, is its actual utilization. Colorado has made notable progress through interstate compacts designed to reserve equitable shares of water for its future development, but the fruits of these compacts will not ultimately be enjoyed unless we exercise reasonable diligence and attain from time to time appreciable progress in actual water utilization. For some years, and more intensely in recent years, Southern California interests have been claiming that the Colorado River Compact of 1922 did not effectuate an equitable apportionment of water between the tV10 basins nor lay a proper basis within each basin for equitable apportionment among the affected states. At the present time these interests, in my own personal knowledge and observation, have been attempting to encourage principles and procedures for Federal reclamation development, which, if adopted by the Government, would make substantial utilization of Upper Colorado River Basin water unattainable in the foreseeable future. These lJ1atters strike directly at the economic feasibility of Colorado water development, including Federal projects needed in Western Colorado and would seriously jeopardize future development over the entire Upper Basin. Even more, these interests have sought in recent years legislation which would have the effect of causing all of the seven states of the Colorado River Basin to go into the Supreme Court of the United States and set forth their respective claims to Colorado River water, irrespective of the provisions of the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Thus far we have been able to thwart these Southern California efforts and shall continue to watch that situation. The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact strengthened the position ot Colorado and other states in the Upper BaSin, but it, too, would fall if the parent compact, through court decision or otherWise, were actually or in effect destroyed. It should also be realized that internal disputes in this State might well result in serious controversy among the states of the Upper Basin with attendant delay in development. " .~ . . -.-. _.0_"_,_" ~~~...iC._~ ;':--'.~~~;;;::~:xl".i~'"".:;;,.~--:~ ~ . . .~-~. ~....