My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00284
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00284
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:48:13 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:34:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/12/1971
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
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 />Department, we had prepared in advance a brief <br />of OUr pOSition urging that the justice Depart- <br />ment take certain steps in answer to the law- <br />suit. There was a very good meeting held with <br />the Justice Department. Department of the <br />Interior people were there also. <br /> <br />After the preliminary motions are disposed <br />of, if they are favorable towards what the <br />Justice Department has requested then the matter <br />is ended. If not, the matter will go to trial. <br />The point we are debating now is whether or <br />not, assuming that the case goes to trial, we <br />should intervene, the Upper Basin states, as <br />interested and necessary parties, which we <br />are. If the Secretary is ordered to cease <br />further storage in Glen Canyon, then the states <br />should institute suit in the united States <br />Supreme Court to compel compliance with the <br />Colorado River Compact, the Colorado River <br />Storage Project Act and the colorado River <br />Project Act. The United States has given its <br />consent that any state could bring suit against <br />the United States in the Supreme Court to com- <br />pel compliance with the terms of the two acts. <br />This is one of the unique cases where the <br />United States gave its consent in advance to <br />be sued by any interested state. If we are <br />not parties to the pending suit in the District <br />of Columbia, we are not bound by the decision. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />In any event, it is a complicated legal <br />problem upon which a lot of factual information <br />will have to be developed. The non-filling of <br />Lake Powell would destroy our agreement with <br />the Lower Basin, because in the Colorado River <br />Project Act of 1968 there is a provision in <br />which Congress directed that after filling <br />Lake Powell to whatever was needed to protect <br />the Upper Basin against the 75 MAF delivery <br />every ten years, that thereafter Hoover Dam <br />or Lake Mead and Lake Powell would be oper- <br />ated in parity; that is, storage would be <br />equalized. Obviously, this provision becomes <br />impossible if we can't put any more water in <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.