BOARD02648

• Board Meeting Date: 9/21/1954
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

423

Mr. Chilson: "I will say that in this report I feel I am
following the previous water policy of the
State of Colorado. ~hen other litigation was
being proposed, Colorado filed a brief with
the Supreme Court and was represented by
Judge Stone, Frank Delaney and Jean Breiten-
stein, and they opposed" the attempt to include
the Upper Basin States in that litigation.
Governor Lee Knous wrote a letter stating it
was State policy to avoid litigation in every
way possible. In the beginlling, let me say
that California has made a shotgun motion and
has thrown in 8very possible issue. I will
read the report."

I

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCEHNING MOTION OF THE
STA TE OF CALIFORNIA TO MAKE COLORI\.DO A
PARTY TO THE CASE OF ARIZONA VS. CALIFORNIA

Mr. Ivan C. Crawford, Director
and
Members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board

Gentlemen;

. You a:-e aware of the fact that there is now pending
in't~e United states. Supreme Court an original proceeding
brought by the State of Arizona again~t the State of
California, to determine certain qu~stio~s relating to
the use of waters of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin.

The United States and the State of Nevada have inter-
vened in this action and are now.parties thereto.

Recently, the State of California has filed with the
Court in said action, a motion stating that the Upper Divi-
sion States of Utah; New Mexico, ilYoming and Colorado are
indispensable parties to a determination of the issues, and
requesting the Court to.make these States parties to the
proceeding. .

Wi th reference to this motion the State of Colorado has
three alternatives:

2. Take no action ontthe motion and allow the Court
to determine the motion without eitter oppositio~
or oonsent.

I

1. Consent to the motion and request the Court to make
it a party.