Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />Bureau of Reclamation report on <br />the Closed Basin Drain was sub- <br />mitted to the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board for comment <br />about a year ago; that further <br />processing of the Bureau's <br />report awaits receipt of those <br />comments; and, that the Board's <br />comments on the project have <br />been deferred because of the <br />opposition of the local interests. <br /> <br />It seems clear that the <br />interests of the San Luis Valley <br />water users, the three states of <br />the compact, and the relationships <br />between those states would be <br />well served by prompt, aggressive <br />action to complete the report <br />on the Closed Basin Drain and <br />bring the project before the <br />Congress for authorization. It <br />is my hope that you recommend <br />such action to the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board. <br />Sincerely, Edwin L. Mechem." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I think most of you may have had the <br />opportunity to familiarize yourselves with <br />the fact that in about 1951 the State of <br />Texas sued the State of New Mexico on the <br />problem of underdeliveries to Texas and <br />at the time of this suit, it was -- if I <br />recall, we had a small credit of water to <br />our account and we were, therefore, not <br />jo ined in that suit -- during the pendency <br />of this suit, the United States Government <br />declined to participate in the suit and <br />the Court ruled that they were an essential <br />party to the suit and, therefore, the suit <br />was dismissed. The court said that the <br />United States was absolutely an essential <br />party to the suit because of the fact that <br />there were Indian water users involved. <br /> <br />We are in the position that we have no <br />Indian water users involved. We are in a <br />