Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~16 <br /> <br />however, is not the same as that on the <br />Laramie River report because some action <br />in my opinion, must be taken by this <br />Board today, prior to the Rio Grande <br />Compact meeting which is scheduled for <br />February 24, so that there is no oppor- <br />tunity for the people_down there to <br />. study the report and come-back to the <br />Board with their comments,' As I am sure <br />all of the men on this Board are aware <br />that it is not a report that can be very <br />well interpreted without engineering <br />help, I think the. two conservancy <br />districts in the Valley both look to <br />Tipton for their engineering advice and, <br />as a result, would be inclined to accept <br />his report wlthout seeing it. <br /> <br />"I had the opportunity of going over <br />a draft of this with Tipton and Mutz last <br />week.and, speaking for myself~ I can: see <br />no objection to approval of this report. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-"I would like to call the Board's <br />attention to the delicate situation we <br />are in with respect to the Rio Grande <br />Compact. We rocked along on-the Compact <br />without getting into debt until 1952. We <br />had a substantial credit before that time. <br /> <br />"Up until 1952; we-thought the Compact <br />was ~'.pb3trty good one. Then in 1952, we- <br />went 153,000 acre-feet in debt. In 1953; <br />another small debit occurred. This year, <br />I think-we are about 60,000 acre-feet more <br />in debt. As you also know, Texas brought <br />a suit against New Mexico for violation of <br />the Compact. One of the kinds of relief <br />requested was an injunction against <br />diversion of direct flow of water. This is <br />still pending in the United States Supr~me <br />Court. One _of the objections raised by' <br />New Mexico was that the United States was <br />an indispensable party because of the <br />Indian rights involved. We are in a very <br /> <br />I <br />