BOARD01757

• Board Meeting Date: 5/25/1951
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

27fi

the tights and interests of the States of the Upper Colorado River Basin to the,
use of the water allocated to them by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. Such
resolution, the Director stated, directed the Legal Committee of the Upper
Colorado River Commission to study all of the questions involved and report
back to the Commission at the earliest possible opportunity. The Director
further explained that a meet.ing of the Legal COIIJlIlittee would be held in
Salt Lake City on May 31 and June 1, followed by a meeting of the Commission
on June 2 and 3. It would be necess....... for the Director, as a member of the
Commission, and Jean S. Bre1tenstein;Attorney for the Board and a member of I'~
such Legal Committee, to take a position and be able to act, in conf'ormity
with the views of the Governor, the Attomey General and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, when these questions respecting the Colorado River are
considered at such forthcoming, meetings of the Commission and its Legal Committee.

It was further pointed out by the Director and Mr. Breitenstein that
heretofore the Colorado Water Conservation,Board, on numerous occasiohs, had
opposed litigation in the Supreme Court of the United states over current con-
troversies between the States of the Lo~r Basin relating to the law of the
Colorado River. Such action by the Colorado Water Conservation Board had been
taken in respect to "so-called suit resolutions" proposed in Congress by the
State of California. These,resolutions sought ,the consent of Congress to join
the United States as a party defendant. Following such action by the Board,
it was explained, the Director and the Attorney for the Board had participated
in hearings before the Committees of Congress in support of the position taken
by Colorado in common with States of the Upper Basin, including Arizona which
lies partially in the Upper Basin. .

This former action of the Boara, followed by activities of the Director
and Attorney for the Board, as above mentioned, was based upon the fear that
litigation, in the form proposed by the Calif'omia resolutions bef'ore the
Congress,would be initiated to determine rights and interests of the Colorado
River Basin States in the Colorado River water, irrespective of the tenns of
the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and in effect to S6CUl'e an' equitable
apportionment. or such waters by a Supreme Court Decree; and also that Colorado
being a signatory to the Colorado River Compact of 1922, any decision of the
Supreme COUl't of the United States might adversely affect, through interpre-
tation of such Compact, Colorado's interest in these interstate waters. This
position 1I'BS also based upon the ' convicti on of Colorado that any interstate
litigation in the Supreme Court of the United States probably would continue
for many years, resulting in an unconscionable 'delay in the development of
the Upper Colorado River Basin. However, it was pointed out to the Board
that the recent action of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the
House might well result in litigation in the relatively near future and that
the Director; as Colorado's member of the Upper Colorado River Commission,
and his legal adviser, Jean S. Breitenstein, should be placed in a position to
act when the matter is further considered by the mE!llber States of the Upper
Colorado River Commission.

I

Members of the Board were furnished with a memorandum entitled "Memorandum
Regarding Possible Litigation Involving Interstate Rights to the Use of Water
of the Colorado River", prepared by Jean S. Braitenste1n. Mr. Breitenstein
was asked to review this memorandum and orally discuss some of the matters
covered by it. Among other things, the above memorandum stated: