BOARD00836

• Board Meeting Date: 9/6/1956
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

463

MR. CRAWFORD:

MR. MOSES:

MR . PETERSON:

MR. MOSES:

MR. PETERSON:

MR. MOSES:

- 8 -

has been reduced from 1,000,000 acre feet to
500,000. The cost is almost the same
because of inflation. Likewise, a reservoir,
like a ditch right, depends upon its priority
date and there has been one reservoir in New
Mexico that was authorized since 1940 and has
already been constructed. It is a flood
control reservoir. We want to hang on to the
1940 date."

I

"I might add in connection with these
remarks, that we do not want any possible
controversial statement in the report to appear
without our making our position clear."

Again, the 1955 report says we have
unofficial computations with regard to certain
quantities."

"In the language of the compact all three
States.have to agree on the computations. Texas
was involved and had sued New Mexico for
violation, so New Mexico refused to agree to the
figures. So, since 1951 there has been
no official computation on them, although we
have a good ,~liea of the figures involved. :It
is highly 'technical. We want to use this
opportunity to reaffirm our position. Are there
any questions? Mr. Sweet, the Project Manager,
Monte Vista, Bureau of Reclamation, is here. and
has lived with this a long time, and I am sure
can answer any questions."

. "Is there any transmountain diversion
contemplated in anyone of these two projects?"

"The investigation included the Weminuche
Pass transmountain diversion. The report states
that that diversion is not feasible at this time."

nNo action will be taken on the transmountain
diversion at this time?n

I

nNo action will be taken. A paragraph of the
comments states that, with revision of the
water supply study and review of the design
estimates, the Bureau might find this part of
the project is feasible. In the Upper Colorado
River Compact, in determining the rights of
the various states, it says, first, "all