BOARD02283

• Board Meeting Date: 12/6/1946
• Description: Table of Contents and Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

36

development possibilities that await detailed study and design,
for the reason that, with few exoeptions, the information
oonoerning suoh projeots is at 'present wholly inadequate upon
whioh to estimate their probable feasibility, eoonomio justification,
or liklihood of being authorized and construoted. $aid list of
project~ is incomplete in that it faila to inolude possibilities
ourrently under investigation by the Bureau and 'others, the ommission
of which hss been called to the Bureau's attention.

4. Regarding the proposal cf the report, "that the States of
the Colorado River Basin determine their respective rights to
deplete the flow of the Colorado River oonsistent with the Colorado
River Compact,'" Colorado's view'and recommendation is that the
report should be revised to show:

(a) That Colorado River Compaot allooate~ 7,500,000
aore feet to the Upper Basin, and obligated the states of
the Upper Basin not to deplete the flow at Lee Ferry to less
than 75,000,000 aore feet in any ten ~onseoutive year period.

(b) That states of the Upper Basin are now negotiating
Tor a oompaot to allooate among individual states both the
right to benefioially use and the obligation to deliver water
at. Lee Ferry speoified in the Colorado River Compaot, and that
such negotiations are being partioipated in by a representative
of the United States.

5. Regarding the statement of the report that. "all the
States (of the Colorado River Basin) have not made final allocations
of water among projeots within their boundaries,"' Colorado says'
that relative rights of respeotive appropriators and projeots in
Colorado have been and will oontinue to be determined by district
oourts under the Constitution and laws of the State.

--,""'"

6. Regarding the statement of the report that. _ "there is
not oomplete agreement among the states regarding the interpretation
of the compact and its aSsociated documents, the Boulder Canyon
Projeot Act, the California Self-Limitation Act, and the oontracts ,
between the Seoretary of the Interior and individual states and their
a~encies for the delivery of water from Lake Mead," - Colorado .says
that the lack of complete agreement has been intens.Uied by the aots
of the Secretary of the Interior in entering into contracts' with
Cali 1'ornia nnd agencies: in exoesa. of and in violation of the provisions
of the Colorado River Compact.

7. Regarding the proposal of the report, "that the States of the
Colorado River Basin, aoting separately or jointly, reoommend for
construction, as the next stage of development, a group of projeots,
the streamflow'depletions of which will assuredly f~ll within ultimate
allooations of Colorado River water whioh may be made to individual
States," Colorado notes a companion proposal to activate a
construction program, that "the nffeoted States decide, from among
known potentialities, which projects they desire to have~the Bureau
consider for oonstruotion, and that such projects as are selecte~

I

I