BOARD01845

• Board Meeting Date: 1/14/1954
• Description: Table of Contents, Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

.I'lL

1ir. Roberts: "I SECOND that motion".

Mr. Dutcher: "In the place of the last sentence, paragrapp il, .which
reads:

I

'Upon the condition that the legal availability
.of a reasonable quantity of water for the Denver-
Blue River diversion b e established, either by
litigation or scme other arrangement, and the
condition that such project be otherwise feasible,
the Board approves the Denver-Blue River Project
for inclusion as a participating project in the
authorization of the Colorado River Storage Project
or for such other Federal legislative or a~inistra-
tive. action as may be requested by Denver".

I MOVE that we delete that sentence and include the following:

'The Colorado Water Conservation Board reserves the
.right to make furth.er recommendations on behalf of
the city of Denver, that it be included as a part
of the Colorado River storage project as a partici-
pating project, or for such other Federal legislative
or administratiye action as may be requested by Den.ver. "'

Mr. Jkek,: "I SECOND that amendment."

Mr. Bailey: "Any remarks on this amendment?"

Mr. Roberts I "That woul,d delete from the resolution all approval of
the Denver-Blue River Project. I should feel it necessary to oppose
that. The deletion of a substantial part of the progra,m, as this
contemplates, is sacraficing that primary purpose that we have. I
certainly oppose that in every possible way."

I

Mr. Bailey: "Any other remarl<s?~

Mr. Dutcher: "We took th~s up very carefully. We read it and re-read
it, and come to the conclusion that it would not be proper for us to
go aloqg, nor would it be a p~tection to Western COlorado t~ go along
on that language as is in the resolution. We thought with this amend-
ment it would leave the door open for Denver to try to work out its
differences. No one would be lOsing anything by delaying the request
of Denver. We also felt that the phraseology used in that sentence
overlooks the precedent that has been repeatedly established by this
Board; that before there could be any further differences, Western
Colorado must be first investigated and protected. We feel that the
preced@6t was reaffirmed when the Frying Pan Arkansas was approved by
the Board. It would mean that the State of Colorado could unite be-
hind the Colorado River Storage Project--that means Eastern Colorado
and Western Colorado. We could support the 'other states in the Upper
basin. As reco:nmended by your resolution, concerning the diI;ferences
that exist between Denver and Western Colorado, in some other way the
door would still be open for the City of De~ver for its request."

Mr. Roberts: "I can't see how any door could remain ?pen after this
proposed legislation. The importance is in having a Colorado program