Laserfiche WebLink
<br />428 <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey: "Does anyone have a question on this report?" <br /> <br />Mr. Dunbar: "I am inclined to agree with Mr. Chilson's ideas." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Dutcher: "Assuming that California might be successful <br />in deferring matters until the suit is settled, <br />nothing would be done regarding the authorization <br />of the Upper Colorado Storage Bill. What position <br />do you think we should take? Have we an alternate <br />plan? <br /> <br />Mr. Chilson: "I assume we will be before' Congress wi t.1J some plan <br />of development at all times, it might be the present <br />Upper Colorado Bill or something entirely different. <br />I also assume that constant efforts before Congress <br />will be made to develop the Colorado River with or <br />without Echo Park and other features. I have not- <br />considered the situation where we might have no <br />plans for development at all. However, this litiga- <br />tion is a lawyer's dream.- Personally, as a lawyer, <br />I would be happy to be engaged in such litigation." <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts: "Has California made any effort to introduce into <br />this case its theory of quality or salinity of water <br />which is urged before the House and Senate?" <br /> <br />Mr. Chilson: "Yes.'! <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts: "If Colorado is a party to the proceedings, the <br />--matter ,>ill be broadened and the entire river <br />would be dragged into the case. Otherwise, the <br />case involves only those issues which are between <br />-the litigants." <br /> <br />Mr. Chilson: "I feel that if the Court takes the position that <br />this is a Lower Basin matter entirely, and if for <br />any reason the Upper Basin states were parties to <br />the suit, it would be at the Master I s discretion . <br />as to whether he would permit these issues to be <br />broadened. It is impossible to say how the Supreme <br />Court ,viII determine this point. They may refer -it <br />to the Master." <br /> <br />I <br />