My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01660
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01660
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:05:01 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:00:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
10/14/1954
Description
Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
14
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 />461 <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey: <br /> <br />We must have that before there can be <br />dev~lopnent of any particular magnitude. We must <br />have the storage on the upper reaches of the rivers. <br />No matter how many direct flow streams Denver <br />taps she will not .have a great supply of water <br />until she has enough storage. . M~ybe we are I <br />wrong in that, but we believe the subject should . <br />be .given.greater study. Mr. Merriell has re- <br />peatedly expressed that before this Board. I <br />recommend that if we are to work out this plan <br />we must 'have the hold-over storage and we <br />should start with the Least controversial. <br />We should apply the same principle to every <br />other phase of the situation. We do not <br />live under tne danger of the lower basin states <br />obtaining some kind of priority for the use of <br />water that was set aside for the Upper Basin <br />states. There was no surplus water in the <br />Colorado River System, over and above the <br />15,000,000 acre-feet appartionedunder Article <br />IJJ (a Jof Hie Colorado Rlver - Compact. The <br />Hill Report shows that there was not to exceed <br />6,200,000 acre-feet available for use in the <br />Upper Basin States, and that amount must <br />neceSsarily be reduced by whatever amount might <br />be required to flow downstream to supply the <br />Mexican Treaty obligations. In my opinion, <br />the only amount of water which could ever be <br />used by the Upper Basin States had been allo- <br />cated in perpetuity under the Compact, qnd it <br />was a misrepresentation to assert that the Lower <br />Basin States could obtain any right to or <br />priority for said water by any kind of use <br />in the Lower Basin. My. recommendation is to <br />modify our plans with an overall program for <br />the State of Colorado and we feel that Denver's <br />claim as a participant in this Colorado River <br />Storage Project should be at least left for <br />future consideration and it should be withurawn <br />at this time." <br /> <br />"1 think these discussions are very helpful and <br />we .iill realize that situation, but I don't think <br />now is the time to try and take any action. I <br />have had word from the Governor's office that <br />he was not coming over. Are there any other <br />matters to bring up at this time?" <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.