BOARD02250

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

.>

22

As you know, I have been concerned for sometime over the problem as to whether or
not Colorado will be placed in a disadvantageous position if it le~ds any support .to
the Glendo Project. You are familiar with the terms of the North Platte decree which
perlllits the reopening of the case on any change of conditions and 5n the construction
of any major downstream project. Since the entry of the North Platte. decree there has
been a change of conditions. That decree was entered upon the basis that there was no 1-
water supply for the Kendrick Project and it now appears that there are very substantial
quantities of water in storage in the Seminoe and Alxwa reservoirs to the credit of
that project. Also the Glendo Project is most assuredly a major downstream development.

I have always felt that the restrictions placed on Colorado in the North Platte
decree, while generous in the definition of the Colorado tights, were unnecessary and
were not justified by the evidence in that case. I recognize..that there is one sub-
stantial ~gwnent against any action on the part o.f Colorado in trying to reopen the
North Platte case. Such argument is based upon the fact that since the entry of the
decree the extent of the Colorado irrigated acreage, the quantity of water stored in
North Platte reservoirs, and the quantity of exportations from the basin have not reached
the maximhm limits fixed for Colorado by the decree. Howevef, it can be said that but
for such limitations new developments might have been entered upon which would increase
the Colorado uses beyond the defined limite.

I have a fear that if Colorado takes a stand in favor of further development of the
North Platte River in the downstream areas, Colorado may find itself in a position which
will effectively preclude it from ever contesting the decree.

Yours very truly,

/s/ Jean S. Breitenstein"

JSB/is

cc: R. ll. Gildersleeve
H. Lawrence Hinkley

Air. Breitenstein then explained that on July 10, 1951 he and Air. Gildersleeve
attended a further moeting in Regional Director Batson's office on the Project. W~.
Breitenstein's report on that meeting, he explained, had previously been mimeographed
and circulated among members of the Board. This report is inserted in the record as
follows:

July 10, 1951

Hon. Clifford H. Stone, Director
Colorado Water Conservation Board
212 State Office Building
Denver, Colorado

Dear Judge Stone:

Re: Glendo Project

I

Mr. Gildersleeve and I today attended a meeting in the office of the Regional
Director, Avery Batson, to discuss the Glendo Project. In attendance from Wyoming were
State Engineer Bishop, Mr. Russell, Prof. Persons and others. From Nebraska there were