BOARD00962

• Board Meeting Date: 11/10/1953
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

263

I

initial operation? There was an insistent demand that
storage on the Gunnison should be included within the
initial phase of the project. Then there was considera-
tion of the larger Curecanti reservoir, but there had
been local 9Pposi tion from the Gunnison area. Then th.e
Policy and Review Committee recommended the small Cure-
canti and attached certain conditions and restrictions.
After the report of the Policy and Review Committee, the
Bill was altered to include the small Curecanti. At
that time, as the Colorado Commissioner, Mr. Hreitenstein
said he could vote in favor of that on account of Water
Board restrictions of February 16 and 17, as he recalls,
he passed on the vote on the Bill for the Colorado River
Project. Mr. Breitenstein further stated that he was
sure that everyone who was present at that meeting will
recall the action of the Board, that its prior approval
of the Storage project was recinded and he was not to
favor the project until further advice to him from the
Board. Mr. Breitenstein said that a few days afterwards,
when the matter of this Bill was again presented, all of
the members of the Commission, except himself, voted in
favor of the Bill. Thereafter, the Conference Committee
was set up. The other Upper Basin states are pressing:.as
energetically as they can. 1hey have accused Colorado
of many things. fur. Will of the Upper Colorado River
Commission has pressed strenuously for the consideration
of the Bill, He reported to a meeting of the Commission
that these hearings are scheduled before the House Com-
mittee on January 18, 1954. Mr. Breitenstein then asked
the Board what their position was going to be, is it
going to be for the project or against it? He explained
that he would have no recourse other than to follow the
advice of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. If
Colorado does not support the project there is, of course,
some questions as to what effect that will have on Con-
gress. It seemed to him, that it is very desirable to
maintain good relations with our sister states. He stated
that pressure has been on Colorado for at least three
years to do something on the Colorado River Porject. Also,
that we were right up against the gun, so what are we going
to do?
motion
Mr. Bailey informed the Board that the fOllowing/was
passed by the Policy and Review Committee at its meeting
of November 5, 1953:

"I MOVE that this Committee recommend and request
the Colorado Water Conservation Board to reaffirm
their previous position and action as to the Gun-
nison River Storage P~oject".

I

This motion was made by Mr. Cory and SECONDED by
Mr. Peterson. The ~~TION WAS CARRIED by a 4 to 1 vote,
Mr. Smith dissenting.