BOARD01352

• Board Meeting Date: 2/1/1966
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

~::10::1

I

in my op~n~on, will be possibly drastically
affected by any decision we reach with regard
to an interpretation of Senate Document No.
80 and I am frank to say that we have spent
some four or five weeks on it attempting just
to arrive at language to present to these
people. I don't know how soon we are going
to be able to get the thing circulated for
their approval. I am sure that all of you
appreciate the real problem there is in under-
standing the words in the document and then
trying to explain it to the next fellow when
you are talking to him about it.

I

with regard to 4671 as now proposed by
the staff of this Board, I want to compliment
the staff and especially btr. Sparks on an
excellent job of putting the bill together.
I might just say that this is partially due
to my ignorance but I want to call the Board's
attention to the fact that we on the western
slope do not feel that it is necessary to
include Section 501 (d) relating to the appli-
cation of the statutes of the State of Colo-
rado for two reasons. The first is that it
applies to the state of Colorado only and
apparently none of the other states involved
in this legislation feel it necessary to remind
the Secretary that they also have laws concern-
ing the distribution of water. The second
reason is, and I understand this to be correct,
that the Supreme Court has advised the Secre-
tary that he need pay no attention to language
of this nature and that if we are going to
tell the Secretary how to run a particular
project we have to do it one, two, three, four.
It has been 501 (d) which, I believe, has raised
the problem, or the fuss you might say, brought
it out into the open in tossing this problem
between the Colorado River Water Conservation
District and these cities and the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District.

The other thing I want to mention, and
as I say I have very diligently pursued the