BOARD01143

• Board Meeting Date: 12/11/1953
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

324

I

Mr. Kuiper: ."In recent years controversies like this have. corne up
and have been settled through arbitration. I believe, if I remember
correctly, that a question of the sar.Je nature occurred in the Gunni-
son basin. The Policy and Review Committee was set up and differences
were resolved. Now we corne to the Colorado Conference Committee to
settle the differences between the ~fustern and Eastern Slope. I don't
think that it presupposes that the differences between the Eastern
and Wes.tern Slopes cannot be settled by arbitration. It was 3. series
,of unfortunate circumstances that resulted, but the fact remains that
the differences still exist. It is true that something should be done
and certainly out of this meeting there should result something
positive on the part of the Board. Onl;r a conditional directive can
be issued by the Board with regard to the Denver Blue Diversion.
That recommendation would have to be on the presumption that the
litigation came out feasibly to Denver. lie realize that there are
certain legal conditions under which Denver can acquire this water.
It is the feeling over there, if Denver must have water for domestic
use, the Western Slope has no choice but to allow Denver that w.ater.
To go and approve this Colorado Conference Committee Report in its
~ntirety w~ll certainly not solve anything that the Colorado Con-
ference COlllLlittee was set up to solve. C.ertainly the feeling in the
past has been bad and this report has not improved those feelings.
The feelings between the two Slopes could be put on a more mutual
basis and arrive on a compromise. Inasl!lUch as the Conference C.om-
mittee is an agency of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, that
agency, through the report that is submitted today, has not accom-
plished the real problem for which it was created. I do not see hCh'i
this Board can approve this report in its entirety. It has not brought .
unity between the Eastern and Western Slope".

I

!&'. Roberts: "I think we a re in danger of los il1g sight of what we
are here for and what the time limit upon our action is not a time
limit of our fixing. It is a time limit that the Congress of the
United States has set in the calling for hi'Jarings on January 18,
1954, upon a specific Upper Colorado River Basin Bill. We have to
give some instructions to our Colorado Representative. We have. to
be prepared to take a position in those hearings. If we take the
attitude that we s)1ould continue to get additional reports, to make
additional studies, something is going to come out on the hearings
on these Bills. There is not going to be very much for COlorado,
except hanging on desperately to an appropriation with a priority
date. S:>mething should be done to get Colorado in that play, for
whatever is done by the Congress at this time for the Upper Basin
States. I would like to have additional data on almost every fact,
but that will have to b e done sometime la~.;er, because the clock moves
on and we must get in that picture if we are going to have develop-
ment in. that Upper Basin. We havi'J employed an expert to study the
whole Colorado River Development. I want to see it pushed along. I
want to see DeBeque get something and oe an 2Sset to this state. Those
are steps that I want to see taken. I want to see the Denver area
protected by water secured outside of the city of Denver. There is
no other way of finding water for the Denver area to grow except to
get more water fror.J the Blue River. That, I think is a program that
meets the needs of the whole state. t~at are we running into then?
The Hill report, I think, on this river is the best that has been