Laserfiche WebLink
<br />231 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />that Colorado has a relatively minor interest; that this interest was limited <br />to that portion of the Arkansas River which lies in this State a.'1d the relation- <br />ship of the development in that portion of the basin with development in other <br />states. He pointed out that the State must be watchful that any definite pro- <br />gram did not jeopardize the interests of this State. <br /> <br />Mr. Breitenstein was called upon to explain his J:e,rticipation on a <br />jurisdictional work -group of the Hydraulic Subcommittee of the Arkansas4l'hite- <br />Red investigation. He stated that he was called upon to submit a statement on <br />9010rado Water Law with particular reference to the Arkansas Basin. He pointed <br />out that full explanation of Colorado - Water Law could not be summarized in <br />a brief manner, because of its many aspects, but that he had prepared for the in- <br />formation of the subcornmi ttee a statement which reads as follows: <br /> <br />"Colorado is a pure appropriation State. The riparian <br />doctrine has been completely repudicated. Under the Colorado <br />Constitution the water in every natural stream is declared to <br />be the' property of the people subject to appropriation for <br />beneficial uses with priority of appropriation given the better <br />right. This principle is subject to the qualification that there <br />must be an equitable apportionment between States of the benefits <br />arising from the flow of interstate streams. So far as the <br />Arkansas diver is concerned, the respective rights of Kansas and <br />Colorado have been fixed and determined by decisions of the <br />United States Supreme Court (Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. s. 125, <br />206 U. s. 46; Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U. s. 383), and by a <br />recently effective interstate compact (see the Act of May 3, 1949, <br />81st Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 155, Public Law 82; 1949 Colo- <br />rado Session Laws, page 485). The administrative agency,set up <br />by this compact has been duly organized and is. now carrying out <br />the functions assigned to it by the compact."'.' . . <br /> <br />The members of the Board expressed unanimous "approval of the -Breiten- <br />stein statement, ahove-quoted, for the purposes for which it was intended. <br />, , <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />.' <br />The Director and Attorney Breitenstein made ca. brief statement on the <br />principal questions of water policy considered at the--=::~t annual meeting of the <br />National Reclamation Association held at Spokane, Washmgton... It was explained <br />that Mr. Breitenstein had served as Colorado's member of the Resolutions Com- <br />mittee and had taken a leading part in the formulation of resolutions which re- <br />late to programs of water development in which this State is interested. Parti- <br />cular reference was made to the so-called "Dana Report" which made proposals' <br />with respect to policies and procedures for basin~vide development. It was ex- <br />plained that this report was unacceptable to Colorado's representatives at the <br />National Reclamation Association; that it was fantastic in its approach to the <br />subject; that it was contrary in many respects to State water law and Constitu- <br />tional provisions of many of the Western states; that it was unworkable; that <br />it did not follow acceptable and legal procedures involved in the adjustment of <br />interstate water relations; and that its recommendations were contrary to the <br />best interests of the Colorado water development program. It was furtller ex- <br />plained tpat by action, through resolutions of the Association, the various <br />Western states, compact commissions and interested water groups were asked to <br />submit comments on this report to the Board of Directors of the ASSOCiation, <br />