Laserfiche WebLink
<br />',1,.4 <br />....: .. <br /> <br />The report of the Legal Committee was adopted and the suggested resolution,was passed <br />with a direction that the Secretary and General Counsel of the Commission take such <br />steps as he deems appropriate to advise the Lower Basin States of the action of the <br />Commission. ' <br /> <br />"During the Commission I s deliberations on the subject it was pointed out <br />that the recommendations of the Legal Committee would eliminate Colorado and Wyoming <br />as necessary parties to the litigation, and the question was raised whether this might <br />result in a breach between those States and the States of Utah and lIew Mexico, each <br />of which has an area within the Lower Basin. The representatives of the States of <br />Wyoming and Colol~do gave assurance of cooperation which were acceptable to the other <br />States. <br /> <br />"Both the meeting of the Lega:!: Committee and the meeting of the Commission <br />were executive. No publicity was given to any actions taken at either meeting. <br /> <br />Senate. <br />changes <br /> <br />"On Tuesday, June 5, the Central Arizona Bill was <br />The vote was approximately the same as tha t in the <br />were made in the bill from the form in which it was <br /> <br />passed by the United States <br />Blst Congress. No important <br />previously passed by the Senate. <br /> <br />"On WedneSday, June 6, at 10:30 A.M., Messrs. Stone and Breitenstein met in' <br />Senator Johnson's office with Senators JOhnson, and Millikin and Congressmen Hill, <br />Aspinall, Chenoweth. and Rogers. Also present at the meeting were W. M. Williams, <br />a member of the Colorado W~ter Conser'lation Board, and Mr. Will, the Secretary and <br />General Counsel of the Upper Colorado aiver Commission. The senators and congressmen <br />all felt that the Upper Basin States should await developments before tak1ng ffi1Y posi- <br />tive action in regard to litigation. They all voiced the opinion that fpom a political <br />standpoint it is very doubtful that either California or Arizona will institute liti- <br />gation. They unanimously suggested that a policy of watchful waiting should be adopted. <br /> <br />"The position of the Colorado congressional delegation differs from that <br />adopted by the Upper Colorado River Commission. The delegation is unWilling to accept <br />the assumption that litigation is inevitable and, hence, believes that Coldrado should <br />not participate ,in al\Y activities which relate to litigation, On the' other hand, the <br />Commission believes that litigation is inevitable and th~t discreet efforts should be <br />made to confine the litigation to the Lower Basin States and to the four issues which <br />have been heretofore mentioned. The Commission plan contemplates advice to the Lower <br />Basin States that the Upper Division States will not oppose litigation and will render <br />assistance to expedite determination of that litigation. At ,the meeting with the con- <br />gressional delegation the view was expressed that the action proposed by the Commission <br />would assist California and harm Arizona in that it would furnish additional evidence <br />of the necessity for court action to define r~ghts. After the meeting with the Cola-' <br />congressional delegation, Messrs. Stone, ;'Iill and Breitenstein considered the matter <br />/ further and it was suggested to Mr. Will that for the time being he should make no <br />effort to advise the ~ower Basin States of the action taken by the Commission. <br /> <br />"On the afternoon of June 6 Messrs. Stone and Breitenstein attended a meeting <br />of the Arizona people in the office of Senator McFarland. On the afternoon of June 7 <br />Mr. Breitenstein met with the following Arizona representatives: Messrs. Moeur, Carson, <br />Akin, and Atkinson. Also present at this meeting were Mr. Will and Percy Coe of the <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />