BOARD01143

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

326

I

Mr. Tipton: "I think that is quite an important point. Mr. Hill
confined himself to the plan contemplated on the Colorado River
Storage Project and the length of carry over. He arrived at a con-
clusion as to the amount available to the Upper Basin. This came
up yesterday and in a very brief way. Mr. Riter suggested that that
should be followed as an approach. We 'should not admit to anybody
that we are going to use less water than was allocated to us by the
Colorado River Compact in 1922. There has been a very recent 'ap-
proach, I understand, on that basis. Let us read another section
of Mr. Hill's report and it is the one on which we should focus at-
tE!ntion, page 10, paragraph 12. (Mr. Tipton reads paragraph 12 and
a brief discussion followed on said paragraph). You have the'stor-
age, you have the capacity. 200 years is plenty long time and we
will have the capacity."

Mr. Breitenstein r"ads paragraph 3. "There is one word in there I
don't like particularly. So far as i am concerned that should be
significant instead of substantial." Mr. Breitenstein reads para-
graph 4. "There again I would say that the word should be Signifi-
cant instead of substantial".

Mr. Pughe: "What would you add to it?"

Mr. Breitenstein: "I am not adding anything to it." Mr. Breitenstein
reads paragraph 5. "I would construe that as requiring me to insist
upon a provision in the Bill that consumptive uses of water are not
to be handicapped in any way for down-stream uses and so far as I am
concerned as being applicable both inter-state and intra-stat~...

Mr. iIloses: "Have you read anything that would be insurmountable?"

Mr. Breitenstein: "No, sir".

Mr. Pughe: "That wouid let the bars down for Denver".

Mr. Breitenstein: "I was not thinking of it in respect to Denver at
all, Mr. Pugh.e." Mr. Breitenstein reads paragraph 6. "I construe
that as giving an approval of the Bill as drafted so far as the
participating projects are concerned."

I

Mr. Breitenstein reads' paragraph 7. "l would construe that to mean
that the DeBeque should be inCluded on the Bill on the same level as
the New Mexico projects and therE: should be no appropriation or
construction' until feasibili t! is made."

IJr. Breitenstein reads paragraph 8. "This is conditioned upon a find-
ing of feasibility. So far as I am concerned an authorization of
Curecanti in the first phase is in the same category as the New Mexico
project. If this is adopted, it would substantiate the action taken
at the !"eeting abo1..'t a month ago."

Mr. Breitenstein reads paragraph 9. "That has nothing to do with the
Upper Colorado River Commission."