Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5;g <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />period of several months when we may <br />not know whether we ,are in or whether <br />we are out. The Master indicated that <br />during that period he intends to have <br />pre-trial conferences for the purpose <br />of clarifying the issues. The issues, <br />as originallY made up by Arizona, were <br />few and pertained to division of lower <br />basin water use. California, by this <br />motion to join the Upper Basin States, <br />has attempted to enlarge the issues to <br />include matters that might happen 100 <br />years from now, if at all. The Master <br />wants to clarify these issues. This <br />puts Colorado in a rather peculiar <br />position because if these pre-trial con- <br />ferences are held before we know whether <br />we are parties or not, certainly we will <br />have to be present because eventually, <br />if we become parties, those conferences <br />are going to be quite important to the <br />State of Colorado. We cannot very well <br />participate officially until we are <br />actually parties, but if those hearings <br />are held, I think the State of Colorado <br />must at least have an observer present <br />and, without entering an appearance as a <br />party, at least make its wishes known. <br />If the conferences are not held until <br />after the motion is".decided, we will not <br />be faced with this situation. If we are <br />out, it will not be necessary for us to <br />participate. If we' are out and Colorado <br />decides to have an observer present, well <br />and good, but we will not be parties to <br />the litigation." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />At this point the Governor arrived and was greeted by <br />the Board members. He stated he was sorry to interrupt and <br />told Mr. Chilson to proceed with his report. <br /> <br />Mr. Chilson reviewed briefly his report on the Arizona <br />v. California case for the Governor. <br />