My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01589
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01589
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:04:02 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:58:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/11/1956
Description
Minutes
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />b <br />"'351 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The Upper Colorado River Commission at <br />Santa Fe on January 5, 1956, has adopted a fair <br />equitable formula and stipulation for said division <br />of these power credits to all four States upon which <br />we can and do hereby agree. <br /> <br />Here is the allocation that was determined at <br />Santa Fe: <br /> <br />To the State <br />To the State <br />To the State <br />To the State <br /> <br />of Colorado, <br />of Utah, <br />f F' . <br />o "yonnng, <br />of New Mexico <br /> <br />46'/0 thereof <br />21.5"/0 thereof <br />15.5"/0 thereof <br />17'l0 thereof <br /> <br />Colorado insists that such an allocation be <br />written into any legislation enacted by Congress <br />for the development of the Upper Colorado River <br />Basin, and furthermore that such a provision in an <br />Act of Congress is absolutely necessary to make <br />pending legislation for the development of the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin acceptable to the State <br />of Colorado. <br /> <br />GOV. JOHNSON: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"That is the resolution. It doubtless <br />needs working over and cha~ged to fit <br />into your ideas but that expresses my <br />thinking on the subject. <br /> <br />I want to say this: Unless in the <br />legislation Colorado is ~iven an <br />equitable share of the power credits <br />at Glen Canyon, and, by the way, <br />Glen Canyon is about the only storage <br />project on the river that develops any <br />power profits, I think 51,75 percent <br />is the least we should get. I realize <br />that you can't always get everything <br />you go after, so I have agreed that 46 <br />percent is acceptable--but unless we <br />do get at least 46 percent of these <br />credits, and I can't speak for anybody. <br />but myself, I will oppose the Upper Colo- <br />rado River development plan before the <br />Congress and do everything that I can to <br />defeat it because I think Colorado has <br />been overly generous with its neighboring <br />states with the division of water and in <br />our whole attitude towards the develop- <br />ment of the Upper Colorado River. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.