BOARD02648

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

424

J. Oppose the motion and attempt to stay out of the
litigation.

I

The determination of which of 'these alternatives the
State should take is a matter of policy to be determined by
this Board. It wo:J.ld appear that this policy decision should
be made immediately, for two reasons: First, the United
States Supreme Court .vill resume its sessions on October 4,
1954, and the Court should be advised of Colorado's position
prior to that time s'othat the Court may be informed of
Colorado's acquiescence in or opposition to the motion.
Otherwise, the Court might determine the motion without
affording Colorado an opportunity to be heard. Second,
the Upper Colorado River Commission will meet on the third
Monday tir September, and I anticipate that this matter will
be discussed, and perhaps some formal action will be taken
thereon. It is advisable that our Commissioner, Mr. Dutcher,
should be advised of the position of the State of Colorado
on this question prior to that meeting.

BefOre making definite recommendations with regard to
the position Colorado should take, I should first advise the
Board" of the issues involved in this li tiga tion.

Arizona instituted the proceeding, and in its complaint
raised three basic issues, which are:

1. How is the beneficial oonsumptive use of water to
be measured?

2. Is water referred to in Article III (b) of the
Colorado River Compaot apportioned or unapportioned
water?

3. How are reservoir losses from the Lower Basin main
stream reservoirs to be oharged?

California, by its answer and other pleadings, has
attempted to raise a multitude of issues, all of which appear
to be immaterial except possibly three, which are:

I

1. Is Arizona a party to and bound by the Colorado River
Compact?

2. If so, is Arizona a beneficiary of the California
Self-Limitation Act?

3. The relative priorities of contracts between the
United States and water users in the Lower Basin.