BOARD01635 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.....~..... " .,------ under part one; "Between the Upper ,JUld L"",er BasinS!."' are entitled. The Colorado RiverCompaot. The Boulder Canyon Projeot Aot. Contraots for Power and Water. and Boulder Canyon Projeot Adjustment Aot. With respeot to Chapter III. "Dividing the Water."' Colorado suggest~ revisions. amend. ment... and rearrangements of the information. as follOW$' (1) Early in said ohapter. under the heading. "Between the Up_ per anCl Lower Basinsi."' include the full text of the Colorado River Com- pact. ;. a dooument involving but 4 printed page,s whioh is of suoh impor- tance as; to justify its; reproduotion in full. Its inolusion will not add to the length of the Report. for thereby many of the explanatory state- menta as; to proviSio'ns of th~ Compact oan be de1.eted. some of whioh state- mentsiaay not be entirel:f acoura'te. or at lel1stmust be revised to make them aoour8.te. Color ..do, ~ugge 8t&: that: introdu,otbry comments. c onoerning the fears.'hopeSl and oontentions. that are said to bav~motivated the negotiation of the Compaot. should be oonfine~ to statements of physical conditions and relati ons affeoting development ,needS! and progr/l./llSo. and should so far as possible avcid interpretations of decisions, (such as the decree entered in 192~ in the case of Wyoming v. Colorado respecting the Laramie River. which Colorado says is' wrongly interpreted in the Report. as evidenced by subsequent interpretations thereof by the Court itself); and should eliminate legal opinions such as those ooncerning "the law respeoting rights to the use of waters of interstate streams," an~ contentions, such as that "the federal government was the agency which logically should effect the regulation of river development. (since the lower part of the Colorado River was or had been IIll.vigable). In the event the Bureau of Reclamation elects; to oomment on legal questions as the sa.me may have been interpreted in 1922. the Repori: should incllrle a review' of the case of Kansas v. Colorado respecting the Arkansas River, decided in 1907 (and recently reaffirmed), which stream also was or had been navigable in its lower reachesl 'and whioh deoision definitely oover- ed both question~ of interstate and federal-state relations. (2) In part (2) entitled. "Congressional Acts. '" ,include brief digests; of the Boulder Canyon Pro,1ect Act. and the Boulder Canyon Projeot Adjustment Act, together with suoh other Acts of Congress as may be re- lated thereto. and suoh agreements thereunder betweeh the United States and interested organttations as related to the 'authorization and oonetruo- tion of B'oulder Dem; and also a s\lIIIIllary of the contraots ror power which were entered into and are now in eff'eot. (3) In part (3) of the Chapter on "Divicfing the Water.. entit- led. "Between the States of the !.ower Division." sumnarhe all the con- tracts entered into between the United Statu and the States of the ~r Division and interests therein. having to do with the delivery or use of waters of the Colorado River 'system. Colorado says that numerous oontraot" have been made. only a fe"" of' which are lIIllntioned in the Re- port. and that such information (inoluding the recently negotiated oon- tract with Arizona. which is not mentioned in the Report) should be pre- sented, together l'Ii th sugge sti ons by the Bureau of Reclamati on as to what steps; might be taken to "cb.r1fy interstate relations," as request- ed in the Report.