Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Thereupon George J. Bailey presented and moved the passage <br />of the following resolution: <br /> <br />Resolution <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Special Master appointed by the Supreme Court <br />of the United States in the caSe of Nebraska v. Wyoming, Colorado <br />impleaded defendant, United States intervenor, has made his report <br />and the Court has ordered that exceptions and objections to the <br />report be filed by November 16, 1944; <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Colorado Water Con- <br />servation Board that the Attorney General of the State of Colorado <br />should prepare and file exceptions and objections and the Board <br />recommends that the following points be raised, <br /> <br />1. No limitation should be placed upon Colorado <br />water uses because there is no showing that Colorado has <br />injured, or presently threatens to injure, the lower states <br />or any of their water users. <br /> <br />2. If there is to be any limitation upon Colorado <br />water uses, then= <br /> <br />(a) Full effect should be given to the Act <br />of August 9, 1937; <br /> <br />(b) Apportionment between the States should <br />be based upon the average annual usable water supply, <br />if properly regulated, and not upon the water supply <br />existing during dr,Quth conditions; <br /> <br />(c) Adequate protection should be afforded <br />existing water uses in the stream basin in Colorado <br />without the recognition of any general formula which <br />might be used as a precedent in other stream basin~. <br /> <br />3. The proposal that the Court retain jurisdiction <br />to modify or amend the decree upon a change of conditions is <br />unsound because: <br /> <br />(a) Water apportionment between states should <br />be on a permanent basis; <br /> <br />(b). The proposal would require the Court to <br />exercise administrative functions; <br /> <br />(c) The proposal, by placing upon the upstream <br />area the burden of establishing the existence of a <br />water supply adequate for upstream development, will <br />shift the burden of proof from that now existing in <br />interstate litigation. <br /> <br />BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Colorado should support and not <br />except to the recommendations of the Master: <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />