BOARD02333

• Board Meeting Date: 1/8/1945
• Description: Table of Contents and Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Minutes

Afternoon Session - January 8, 1945

The meeting reconvened at 2,2D p. m. and was called to order by Vioe-
ChaiTman Chris Wallrich.

The members of the Board asked questions of Mr. Patterson, Mr. Tipton
and Mr. Merriell. Mr. E. G. Nielsen, of the Bureau of Reolamation in response
to comments made by Board members, stated that the report was intended as an
inventory of projects. He asoribed' the different treatment of the Upper and
Lower Basins of the Colorado River to the faot that the report had been pre-
pared under the supervision of two regional direotors and that there had not
been time to plaoe the two Basins on a comparable basis before the report had
been issued in the first instance.

Mr. Glenn Saunders, representing the Water Board of the City and
County of Denver, was oalled upon to present his oomments. He oalled attention
to the faot that the written statement of the Water Board of the City and
County of Denver had been filed with the Direotor of this Board and had been
considered by Chief Rngineer Patterson in the preparation of his oonclusions.
. He stated that the Denver Water BoarD. in general was .in agreement with the
analysis of the Bureau report made by Mr. Patterson; but he stated that,while
the Bureau report purports. to be a plan of comprehensive development, it does
not list all proposed nor present projeots. On the contrary, this Bureau
report refers only to those projects oonstructed or proposed for construotion
by the Bureau of Reclamation. He believed that any plan should reflect the
entire basin development. He called attention to what were apparently teoh-
nical errors in the Bureau report so far as such errors affected the City
and .County of Denver.

Judge John B. O'Rourke commented that no area of the .State should be
foreolosed from presenting its position with respect to the Bureau report
directly to the Bureau if the position of the people of any section should not
be in agreement with the position and policies submitted by the Colorado Water
Conservation Board.

Judge O'Rourke then presented a brief oral statement on behalf of the
San Juan Basin in Colorado. He explained that the people in his area were
giving careful oonsiderati on to the Bureau report and would later present a
written statement. Particularly he emphasized that whereas the report of the
Bureau of Reclamation purports to present a comprehensive plan, it did not,
in his judgment, do so nor did it appear that all potential projeots were
included in the report.

It was decided that the consideration of further st~tements would be
continued until the next day; and, thereupon, the oonsideration of proposed
amendments to the Colorado Conservancy Distriot Act of 1937 was taken up. It
was explained that letters had been reoeived by the Director from attorneys of
the Bureau of Reclamation suggesting certain amendments which, if deemed ad-
visable by the Board, should be submitted for consideration at the present
session of the General Assembly. It was further pointed out that interests
in the San Luis Valley have proposed an amendment to the Conservancy District
Act which would permit under a proposed procedure, an e.lection of the District
Board of Directors in lieu of appointment by the Distriot Court. Mr. Char.les
J. Beise, of the legal staff of the Bureau cf Reclamation, and Mr. Lyman Wright
of Monte Vista, Colorado, commented upon proposals for amendment of the Con-
servanoy Distriot Act.