BOARD02537

• Board Meeting Date: 9/17/1958
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

ll~::l

be had with the lower basin states, and
personal contact made in the capitols
of the upper basin states. .

I

The author of this report corresponded
with the states of California, Nevada, and
Arizona. The information received was in-
adequate to give a true picture. In addi-
tion, figures received were, in the main',
of such age that a proper comparison of
current conditions in Colorado could not
be made. Another difficulty which has
become more apparent through the visits
to the states of Utah, Wyoming and New
Mexico, is the vastly different organi-
zational responsibilities between the
various states. Generally speaking,
there are two or more agencies dealing
with water. I understand, although it
is not confirmed, that in Arizona there
are 17 agencies involved. Hence, a com-
parison between the Colorado Water Con-
servation Board and, for example, the
Natural Resources Department 9f the State
of Wyoming, is useless. For one thing,
the State Engineer's office in Wyoming
is apparently the responsible agency at
the present time in all interstate mat-
ters dealing with water.

Hence, it becomes apparent that any
comparison between the various states will
have to be made on the basis of all Colo-
rado agencies dealing with water, includ-
ing this Board, the Office of the State
Engineer, and the Underground Water Com-
mission.

I

In respect to the states visited,
a great deal of very useful and enlighten-
ing information has been obtained. However,
the last such visit was made on Monday of
this week, and time has made it impossible
to completely digest and analyze this in-
formation.

In a preliminary way, it appears
that Colorado is equal to or superior to
the other three basin states in respect to
compensation of professional engineers and
sub-professional personnel. However, it