Laserfiche WebLink
<br />426 <br /> <br />make it a party to this action. <br />set forth above, my reasons for <br />briefly as follows: <br /> <br />In addition to the matters <br />such recommendation are <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1. Possible effect on' development of water use in <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />The present beneficial consumptive use of water of the <br />Colorado 'River by Colorado and the other Upper Division <br />states is about one-third of their allocated 7,500,000 acre- <br />feet per annum. Future wa tar use development in the Upper <br />Basin is largely dependent on Federal Reclamation 'projects <br />and main stream storage, which require authorization by <br />Congress and large appropriations of public funds. <br /> <br />The effect upon Congress of Colorado becoming a party <br />to this litigation is of great, if no.t paramount, importance. <br /> <br />Prior to its motion to make Colorado a party to this <br />litigation, the State of California used as one of its <br />arguments in opposing the Colorado River Storage Project <br />Bill, the contention that no authorization should be made <br />until the determination of the Arizona vs. California liti- <br />gation. <br /> <br />Although this argtnnent is clearly without merit, a <br />similar contention was successful in defeating in Congress <br />the proposed Arizona Central Valley Project. The House of <br />Representatives took the position that until the dispute <br />between Arizona and California was settled, by litigation <br />or otherwise, it would take no action on the project. If <br />Colorado and the other Upper Division States are made parties <br />to this litigation, Congress will be told that Colorado's <br />water rights are in litigation, and that' Congress should not <br />authorize a project calling for the expenditure of large sums <br />of public money Until the Supreme Court. decides this litigation. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Should such an argument be successful, any development <br />calling for congressional authorization and appropriation of <br />funds will be delayed many years. <br /> <br />The Arkansas River was in Federal Court litigation from <br />1901 to 1943; the Laramie River from 1913 to 1940, and the <br />North Platte from 1934 to 1945. <br /> <br />There,is no reason to assume that this litigation will <br />be less extensive, and particularly so when delay is to the <br />interests of ~~e State of Californi~. <br />