BOARD00852 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

214 The motion was seconded by Mr. Pughe. On vote, the motion carried unanimously, and was declared adopted. The Board took up Item 6, Problems Incident to Colorado River Develop- ment. The Director stated that the Board had never entered into an over-all discussion of Colorado River matters, but frequently was asked to decide policy _I' on piecemeal matters. He said'the Director, the Attorney, the Consulting Engineer and others dealt with these problems almost daily., Anticipating de- c~sions may be needed soon from the Board, on policy matters, the Director sai d the Board should Imow conditions, especially the nature of the activities of the State of California. He said California is taking the position (a) that there are not now any f~asible project developments in the Upper BaSin, (b) California's attitude on federal reclamation is such as to defeat or delay Upper Basin development, and (c) California is engaged in a broad scale program of propaganda adverse to the interests of the Upper Basin States. He explained that a recent California obstacle to Upper Basin development was contained in tha t state's proposal to inject the entire matter of Colorado River utilization into an interstate lawsuit for the purpose of re-adjudicating the rights of the States, contrary to t.'1e provisions of the Colorado River 'Comp!lct.. The Upper Basin States, he said, have endorsed the Central ArizC81a Project, opposed b~ California, in the belief that Arizona's policy and pro- posed development are in confonni ty with the oColorado River Compact and the views of the Upper Division States. Mr. Breitenst~n was called upon for comments. He explained that California's proposal for interstate litigation on the Colorado River aimed to have the Basin States set up their rights to ColC!rado River. water, and have those rights adjudicated by the United States "upreme Court. He said that the Federal legislation proposed by California was so worded that present compacts, and the accepted law of the river, could be disregarded entirely. He aecused California, a party to the 1922 Compact, of having secured benefits through construction of BO]1lder Dam and th~ All-American canal, and now seeking to be relieved of the wrdens placed on the State by the compact. He traced the history of the Colorado River Compact, and the provisions contained in it. California, he said, opposed the Mexican water treaty, evidently on the assumption that until Mexico's share of Colorado River water was known, there could be no further development in the United States and in the Colorado River Basin. California has made late.r attempts to have treaty provisions nullified. California has withdrawn' from Colorado River conferences with the other states, and has, instead, fostered and promoted organizations of dissident factions, to embarl1ass the program in the various states. "As to the present situation", Mr. Ireitenstein said, ''It seems to me that it is to the intere.sts of the Upper Basin States to proceed as rapidly as is economically feasible to obtain projects in the Upper Basin to develop Upper Basin water". He said that Colorado 1