BOARD01598

• Board Meeting Date: 9/27/1946
• Description: Table of Contents and Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I

13

It ...as announoed by the Direotor' that Mr. Hinderlider was engaged
in a hearing and would be unable to be present; and that Judge .0'Rourke had
been ill and would be unable to attend the meeting. It was suggested that
Dan Hunter, President of the Southwestern Water Conservation Distriot, wa.
present and that he be invited to partioipate in the,meeting for Judge
O'Rourke. The suggestion was appro~ed by the Board and Mr. Hunter took his
plaoe at the table to aot in the absenoe of Judge O'Rourke.

It was moved b:r Mr. Bannister and seoonded by Mr. Pughe
that the minutes of the meeting of the Colorado Water Conservation
Board, held May 17, 1946 and the meeting of the Board held July 21,
1946, oopies of whioh had been made available to all members of
the Board, be approved.

Upon vote being taken the motion was unanimously
passed and deolared adopted.

Thereupon there oame on for oonsideration interstate problems on the
Laramie River involved in a suit now pending before the Supreme Court of the
State of Colorado. Attorney General H. Lawrenoe Hinkley and Jean S. Breiten_
stein, Attorney for the Board. were oalled upon to present the matter to the
Board.

The Attorney General explained' that the Meadowland water users in the
Laramie River basin and the water users served by exportation of water from
the basin had been unable to make a permanent agreement and the Meadowland
water users were Wll'Iilling to oontinue a temporary agreement for the use by
the two respeotive groups of water users of 39.750 aore feet of water appor-
tioned to Colorado by the Supreme Court of the United States. A suit over
the matter had been deoided in the Distriot Court and appealed to the State
Supreme Court. This suit had been held in abeyanoe for a oonsiderable length
of time under annual interim agreements by the two groups of water users for
the apportionment of Laramie River ""ter between them. The Supreme Court.
beoause of the oase remaining on the dooket for a long length of time without
briefs being filed by the parties or the oase being argued on its merits.
had deoided the issue. This deoision. in the opinion of the Attorney General
and the Attorney for the Board, would result in a substantial loss by Colorado
and a gain by Wyoming of water whioh had been apportioned by the Supreme Court
for use in Colorado.

It was deemed advisable to ask for a rehearing and efforts had been
made to obtain the agreement of the Meadowland water users to hold the oase
in abeyanoe in an effort to reaoh an amioable adjustment. This involved a
possible agreement with Wyoming. The Court had granted a rehearing but unless
stipulations between the parties were made, briefs would have to be filed and
the matter further argued before the Court.

The Meadowland water users had refused to make an agreement and enter
into a stipulation and had oontinued to press their request that the State of
Colorado again take the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States in
an effort to obtain oredit for return flows' from use of water an the meadow-
lands in the basin. The Attorney General stated that it would be neoessary
to obtain the attitude of the Board. whioh is in oharge of interstate water
matters. with respeot to opening negotiations with Wyoming and with respect
to the position the State should take. because of the interstate phase of the
problem, in the Supreme Court of Colorado.