BOARD01303 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I MR. STAPLETON: MR. SPARKS: MR. STAPLETON: I MR. NELSON: MR. STAPLETON: MR. NELSON: 1775 Now I don't want to go at length into what possibilities there are to make them en- forceable but even with all the attempts at forceability, as far as the Boulder Canyon Proj- ect Act is concerned, that is, the compact we entered into with the lower states the Project Act which required California's self-limitation act and which they solemnly adopted by act of their Legislature6 saying 'No, we'll never ask for more than 4,4 0,000 acre-feet'; in spite of all those things we still have contentions 'and plans being made now that these restrictions are not enforceable against them and those con- tentions are being given serious consideration, at least by the Department of the Interior in the Glen Canyon situation. . I feel that certainly the delay on' our part is inexcusable. I think we have to apologize to New Mexico for that. But I would feel because as I say of all these problems, the problem of enforceability, what we should uo in taking a position on this is to say to New Mex- ico 'This is what we want. Let's sit down and see what can be done to give us what we want'; and not adopt this and say this does everything we want. I question whether it does in respect to the matter of enforceability only. I d~ believe, before we take a firm posi- tion in respect to this legislation, we should say this is the legislation we insist on and that we will agree to. That these ideas should be used as a basis for negotiating to arrive at en- forceable agreements which will carry them into effect." "Who are the members of the committee who worked with you on this7' "Mr. Moses, Mr. Eakes, Mr. Gildersleeve, Mr. lex and myself." "Do any of the Board have any comments?" ~'Mr. Chairman." "Mr. Nelson." "Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question, similar to Mr. Barnard's. In 1953 and '54, this Board hazzled for almost a year on the matter of legislation for the Colorado