BOARD02326

• Board Meeting Date: 5/17/1946
• Description: Table of Contents and Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

6

capacity the Colorado members of the Compaot Commission had dealt with
the members of the commission, from Kansas on the subject; no agreement
was reached, the Army Engineers had issued what amounted to "a freezing
order" on the water in storage and began to release that water in
accordance with the Army's determination of the desirable rates of release.
He reviewed the meetings of the commission which had thus far been held
and stated the next meeting of the entire Commission was scheduled for I" '
Denver July I, 2 and 3. The COlll!Ilission had been organized with
Gen. Hans Kramer, Federal Representative, as Chairman, and arrangements
had been made for the formal reoord of all proceedings. He pointed out
that the immediate work of the oommissio~ had to do with a joint
engineering study by the two states, Following Mr. Patterson's; report
considerable discussion ensued in which Miss' Pointer, Judge A. W.
McHendrie, representing the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association, Mr.
Patterson and the Direotor.participated.

The next item on the agenda was a report by the Director concerning the
status of adjudication proceedings for the purpose of establishing appropriative
rights for the Colorado-Big Thompson which is now under construction. He
mentioned oertain conferences' which had been held' with representatives of the
Department of Justioe, E. B. Debler, Director of Region 7, Bureau of Reolamation
and representatives of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. These
conferences had to do with the question of the court in which the adjudication
proceedings would take place and the application of Senate Document BO, under
whioh the Colorado-Big Thompson project was authorized for construction, in
these adjudication proceedings. He explained that Some of the Federal officials
had expressed a desire to adjudioate these water rights in the Federal oourt,
whereas the State representatives insisted that such adjudication should take
place in the State courts. Jean S. Breitenstein, Attorney for the Board, was
asked to commene and gave- his views, concerning the matter.

The Direotor' then reported concerning the status of project investi-
gation work, particularly by 'the Bureau of Reclamation, within the State of
Colorado, and discussed the various meetings he had held with Bureau of
Reclamation officials in connection with such investigations. He also
reported on the status of the Bureau of Reclamation project reports; and the
work that the stafr of the Board had been called upon to do in connection
with them.

The Direotor then reported oonoerning the status of pending appro-
priation bills for reclamation and flood control projects in the State of
Colorado. In this oonnection he reviewed in detail the oontroversy whioh
'had arisen in hearings over the so-oalled Robinson Bill, then pending
before the Irrigation and Reclamation Committee of the House of Representa-
tives. He explained the issues involved whioh Rad to do with the applica- I'
tion of power revenues in multiple-use projects. He said there were
divergent views between the Reolernatfon states and the Bureau of
Reclamation respeoting the interpretation of the 1939 ReolarrAtion Aot.
. .

Thereupon there carne up for discussion the proposal of Governor Hunt of
Wyoming to oall a meeting of the Upper Basin States of the Colorado River for
the purpose of initiating negotiation of an Upper Colorado River Basin
Compact. Sinoe the meeting had not been oelled and the report of the Bureau
of Reclamation on the Colorado aiver Basin hed not been issued, it was olear
that no decisions on the subject could be made at present.