BOARD02283

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

40

In_p~esenting his statement Mr. P&tterson commented upon and gave an
explanation or each of the seventeen itema.oovered in his ntatement. Questions
were asked and comments and suggestions made by memberi or the Boar~ and others
present.

Upon the oonclusion of Mr. Patterson's statement, Royoe J. Tipton.
Consulting Engineer or the Board, was oalled upon to stmmit his statement and
oomments. Mr. Tipton oommented that Mr. Patterson had outlined very fully and I'.
olearly the matters whioh the informal committee had oonsidered. He believed
that Colorado'~ oomments on this report oonstituted one or the most important
tasks whioh the Board has been oalled upon to perform since its creation.
These comments will have far reaohing erreot. He stated that in his opinion
that if the Bureau of Reolamation's Colorado River Report were aooepted by the
State in its present form, suoh action would be "extremely dangerous". He
.oalled attention to the Missouri River development plan whioh has been aocepted
by Congress and stated that the Bureau or Reolamation had the sarne oonoep~
for the formulation of a basin plan for the Colorado~Rive~ inoluding the
eoonomio justirioation for the oonstruotion or the projeot reatures under suoh.
a plan. He opposed suoh a plan and stated that the Missouri Basin approaoh
should' not be aooepted by the States of the Colorado .River basin. Aside from
the unsoundness or the fundamental ooncept of suoh approaoh, it must be
reoqgnized that in the Colorado River basin there doe~ not exist the poss-
ibilitieg for navigation development ,nor the neoessity for striotly flood
oontrol projeots which are found in the Missouri basin. Beside~ the fundamental
policies underlying the oomprehensive plan of development on the Colorado River
must reoognize the Colorado River Compaot, the Boulder Canyon Projeot Aot.
oorreot interpret.ation of oontracts ~ade bet~en the Government, States and legal
sub-divisions of Stateli in the Lower Basin and self-limitation statute passed
by Calirornia and the United States-Mexioo Treaty. These legal doouments.
agreements and legislation efreoting the Colorado River constitute what has been
oalled "the law of the river"'. They oannot be disregarded, .and they are not
amen~ble to the. program and eoonomio justifioation theory which were followed
in tqe Missouri Basin plan.

Mr. Tipton ealled attention to the eontrBet~ between the Government
and California ageneiea for the delivery or water stored in Lake Mead. These
eontraots, specify 5,,62,000 aore feet even though the C"liforni8> self-limitation
statut~ limits that State's use to 4.400.000 aore feet. :He.explained. however.
that the oontraets themselves oontain~d language which made it quite explioit
that they covered' only such water as was available under the terms of the
Colorado River Compaot and the Boulder Canyon Projeet Act and related documents.
In this oonnection he stated:

,"The Bureau in this report says there is only 2.024,000
acre feet of surplus water. There aotually won't be that much.
Nevertheless the Bureau in this report shows. that ~he Lower
Basin by its present proje~ts will ut.ilize something ove~
8,500,000 aere feet. The Bureau also indieates that California
for its present projeets will utilize something, in the order of
5,626,000 aere feet, whieh exee~ds the 4,400,000 aere feet that
she 'has any right; to use.

I"