BOARD00586 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.L'%vL: MR. STAPLETON: MR. BEISE: in the exact wording which does not alter the basic requirements quite possibly would be approved by our Board. Now this five year limitation, if by that it is meant that there'll be interference with our rights by transmountain diversions for a I period of five years, I would say the Board would reject that. That's my guess at it. I am not going to answer that question my- self. We have a Board to answer those ques- tions but it is going to take us, gentlemen, a long time to develop this water. The State of California and the State of Arizona have been at it a lot longer than we have. You people in eastern Colorado have been at it by closer circumstances a lot longer than we have. Now we think we are entitled to catch up and we are going to insist that we be per- mitted to catch up." UMr. Beise." "The issue which is posed by this pro- posed resolution is not new and if this were the first time that this Board were being asked to take this stand, it would have novelty; it would pose a major issue and it would be worthy of prolonged discussion and consideration. I distinctly and vividly recall that this very Board took a six months adjournment in 1951 so that this identical problem could be considered. At that time the Colorado River District proposed a reso- lution to the State Board and the Southwestern Colorado Water District, my dear old friend, Dan Hunter proposed the same phraseology and after a delay of possibly six or eight months, this Board then took its stand. It was said at that time, in some cir- cles, that the Fryingpan had sold the rest of the state down the river so to speak, in order to get approval for the Fryingpan. We have learned in the Arkansas Valley by a very expensive lesson that is is impos- sible for any project in Colorado, eastern or western slope, to be authorized by Con- gress if any section opposes it with any effort at all. That will continue to be true whether we pass this resolution or we I