BOARD02648

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

425

All of these questions, with the possible exception of the
method to be used in the measurement of beneficial consumptive
use, are questions concerning water uses in the Lower Basin and
are of insufficient concern to the State of COLorado to justify
participation in the litigation.

The Colorado River Compact does not state how the beneficial
consumptive use of water of the river is to be measured;
California contends measurement should be made by "diversions
less ret-urns to the river"; Arizona says measurement is by "III!'"
made depletion of the main stream virgin flow". The Upper Division
States, by the Upper-Colorado River Compact, selected the method
of "man made' depletions of virgin flow" until the COmmission, by
unanimous action, adopts a different method. -
. .

I

I am informed that although some study has been--.made, it
has not yet been determined ,vhich method of measurement will be
most advantageous to Colorado.
. .

A California representative, testifying at the Senate
hearings on the recent Colorado River Storage Project Bill,
estimated that measuring consumptive use by "diversions less
returns" rather than by "man made depletion", would result
in a difference to the Upper Basin of 300,000 to 500,000 acre-
feet. Certainly this is a maximum estimate.

However, it is estimatea _that the present consumptive
uses in the Upper Basin, plus the consumptive uses of the
projects in the Colorado River Storage Project Bill submitted
to the last Congress, total approximately 4,200,000 acre-feet.
This amount is well within the 7,500,000 acre-feet allocated
to the Upper Basin by the Colorado River Compact, irrespectiye
of which method of measurement may be used.

It is apparent, therefore, that at the present time and
for many years to come, the method of measurement of bene-
ficial consumptive use is of theoretical interest only.

I ~~ll not here attempt to set forth the other issues
which the State of California has attempted to raise, but
it is my opinion that there is no issue involved in the
present litigation which either requires Colorado to be a
party to it, or that makes it desirable for Colorado to
voluntarily appear therein.

It is my opinion that Colorado is not an indispensable .
party to this litigation, and I have no hesitancy in recommend-
ing to this Board that Colorado should oppose the motion to

I