Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2<:J7 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />nInterstate litigation in the United States Supreme Court <br />to determine the rights of the Colorado River Basin States to the <br />use of the waters of that strea~ has long been a recognized possi- <br />bility. The recent action of the House Interior and Insular Affairs <br />Committee in rejecting the Central Arizona Project, at least until <br />after the determination of the rights of the Lower Basin States, has <br />resulted in renewed discussions among representatives of the Upper <br />Basin States as to the attitude which they should take in regard to <br />such litigation. This makes it necessary for Colorado to review <br />the situation and determine the course of action to be taken by <br />its officials'. <br /> <br />"This memorandum is intended to present in as simple a fashion <br />as is possible the factors which should be considered by Colorado <br />in making its decisions on this important matter. <br /> <br />"SUMMARY STATEMENT <br /> <br />"The situation confronting Colorado may be sum.~arized as follows: <br /> <br />"I. There is a definite probability that .vithin a period of six <br />months to a year there vnll be litigation over the rights of Colorado <br />River Basin States to use the waters 0: that stream. This arises <br />from the position in .mich ~izona is placed and from the insistent <br />demands of California and !levada over the last f our years that such <br />litigation is both necessar'J and inevitable. <br /> <br />"2. While such litigation may be confined to a determination of <br />the rights of the Lower Basin States, a decision on some of the issues <br />will affect Colorado as it ,viII consti~ute a ,precedent i~terpreting and <br />applying those instruments constituting the law of the river. Although <br />such a decision .nll not be legally binding on Colorado, if Colorado <br />is not a party to the suit, the practical effect of the decision on <br />Colorado will probably be the same as though Colorado was a party. <br /> <br />"3. In the event of litigation there is the definite danger that <br />one or more States may seek to destroy the integrity of the 1922 com- <br />pact and seek to obtain a court adjudication of the rights of the Basin <br />States to the use of waters of the stream without regard to the compact. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"4. Colorado must decide whether to 'oppose or accept litigation. <br />If ~olorado feels secure in the position that the Colorado River pro- <br />jects which it desires may be obtained in spite of the pendency of <br />litigation involving interstate rights to the use of Colorado River <br />water; then litigation should be opposed. On the other hand, if <br />Colorado believes that development 'viII be expedited by the trial and <br />determination of legal issues at this time when international compli- <br />cations cause a drastic cut in the public works program, then litiga- <br />tion should be accepted and pressed to an early conclusion. <br /> <br />"5. If Colorado determines that it vnll not resist litigation <br />at this time, then Colorado should actively proceed to expedite the <br />litigation. <br />