BOARD02498

• Board Meeting Date: 6/11/1951
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

8

Commenting upon Mr. Bailey's inquiry, the Director explained that he and J. G.
Will, Secretary-General Counsel of the Upper Colorado River Commission, had discussed
with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation the application made by all of the
Upper Colorado River Basin States for an extension of thirty days' time. The Commissioner
was very reluctant in approving such extension. However, later the Secretary of the I
Interior granted the thirty-day extension. The Director stated that he had agreed
with Commissioner Straus that Colorado would not ask for a further extension of time
and he believed that if the agreement to ask for no further extension had not been "
made, the thrity-day extension would not have been granted; and the Director further
stated that, in his 9pinion, it would be unW1ise to seek a further extension to file
official State cOmments for various other reasons.

Jean Breitenstein expressed the view that if the Board submitted comments
before the expiration of the extended period, it would be possible to include in
such comments all of the major items which should be covered by State Comments even
though it was necessary to leave the Curecanti question to be covered 'by later comments.
Mr. Breitenstein submitted a list of items on which approval by the Board seemed apparent.
Among these, Mr. Breitenstein' explained, were such matters as Colorado's view on the
Bridgeport unit of the Colorado River Storage Project, immediately or delayed author- '
ization of the Glen Canyon Reservoir, Colorado's interest in the Shiprock Indian Pro-
ject in New Mexico, which was proposed as a participating project, the question of the
inclusion of the La Plata Project as a participating unit, approval or disapprovai of
the criteria for eligibility of participating projects and views of the State on the
engineering feasibility and economic justification of the plan of development proposed
in the report submitted by the Secretary of the Interior.

The Board entered into a discussion of the various items
sideration in order to further clarify Colorado's position on the

~

suggested for con-
Project.

After further discussion and eXpression of views by the Board, respecting
various questions and phases of the proposed Colorado River Storage Project and Partici-
pating Projects, a motion was made sunnnarizing in conformity with such views, as follows:

It was moved by Judge Dan H. Hughes and seconded by A. E. Headlee
that the Director, the Attorney, and the Consulting Engineer of the Board
be instructed to prepare official State connnents of Colorado on the Colo-
rado River Storage Project and Participating Projects 'in conformity with
the following:

" .

1. The general plan set forth in the report' of the Bureau of
Reclamation,is acceptable to! and approved by,Colorado.

2. Colorado supports the plan to use a portion of the power
revenues to support irrigation projects and in'this regard Colorado
approves a plan for the basin account and for participating projects.
, -

I

3. Colorado gives general !lPproval to the criteria established
by the report for the qetermination of the right of a project :to qualify:- for
aid from revenues made available by the Colorado River Storage Project; that
in particular instances, it may be found desirable to adjust these criteria