BOARD02250

• Board Meeting Date: 8/6/1951
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

n4,

(1) That the Lower Basin States consult with the Attorney General of
the United States as to whether he will institute in. the Supreme
Court of the United States such action as he may deem proper to
secure a judicial determination interpreting and applying the
instru'llents w,hich constitute the law of the River to the end that
the four issues mentioned above may be resolved.

I

(2) In the event that the Attorney General declines to act upon such
request and institute such litigation, the Colorado River Basin
States should not oppose the passage by the Congress of the United
States of a.suit resolution in substantial accord with that recom-
mended by the Secretary of the Interior in his letter of !Aay 13,'
i948, to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs except that consent.to suit be conditioned upon
the institution of the sUit within six months from the effective
date of the resolution.

(3) The Secretary and General Counsel of the Commission is directed to
take such measures as he deems appropriate to advise the Lower Basin
States of this action of the Co~~ssion.

Director Stone reported that Arizona had agreed to keep Colorado, as well as
other Upper Basin States, fully informed from time to time as to any action which that
state expected to take with respect to the commencement of litigation in the Supreme
Court of the United States, hut that Arizona now felt that every effort should first
be made to secure the passage by the House of a bill authorizing the Central Arizona
Rroject. A bill to authorize the Central Arizona Project (S75) had been passed by
the Senate in the present session. During the last session of Congress, a similar
bill had been passed by the Senate.

Mr. Breitenstein stated that he felt that there should be some expression by the
Board as to the policy which he and Director Stone should follow in this matter,
whether they should follow the policy adopted by the Commission or t!~t expressed
by the Colorado Congressional delegation. After all, he explained, he and the Director
in their participation in the affairs of the Upper Colorado River Commission and in
their recognition that every effort shoUld be made to follow the advice of the Colorado
members of Congress, have been placed in a difficult situation.

The Director explained that he did not want the Board to conclude from this dis-
cussion that the Board and its staff had not had very fine relationship and cooperation
with the Colorado Senators and Congressmen. He said that over the years these relation-
ships could not be better. Colorado members:) f Congress, he said, had rendered out-
standing services in the consideration of water development over the entire West.

After further discussion it was moved by John Cross and seconded by Dan
Hunter as follows:

I

That the Director take steps to arrange a meeting .of the Board with as
many of the Colorado Congressional delegation as possible at the earliest
convenience of that delegation so that this Colorado River matter may be dis-
cussed with them