Laserfiche WebLink
<br />u~)J7~~; <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />-10- <br /> <br />any period of ten conseoutive water-years. These negotiations were <br />initiated under the Compact Clause of the Federal constitution. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />However, Colorado does not concur in the implied, and often re- <br />peated assertion, that controversies concerning the waters of the Colorado <br />River Dan and should be resolved by joint aotion of all seven of the <br />Colorado River Basin states, nor does the State concede that an adjustment <br />of all controversies in both the Upper and Lower basins must be settled <br />before major developments of the water resources of the river may proceed. <br />There are controv~rsial matters peouliar to each basin which are unrelated <br />to those in the other, the adjustment of which will permit development <br />to go forward in one basin although unresolved questions remain in the <br />other bas in, <br /> <br />, <br />,.' <br /> <br />It is pertinent to point out that after initiation of compact nego- <br />tiations by the states of the Upper Basin, it was found necessary to ap- <br />point an engineering connni ttee to review the water supply and depletion <br />estimates and other factual information contained in the Report, and to <br />supply data not included in the Report which is reoognized to be necessary <br />or desirable for the negotiation and consunrnmtion of a workable compaot. <br />It is here sug~ested that this fact indicates the need for a modification <br />of the Report and the inclusion in it of data and information which it does <br />not now contain. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />9. In Colorado there may be nO allocation to specific projects. <br />It is asserted in the Report that all the states have not made final allo- <br />cations of water among projects within their borders. This implies and <br />amounts to a proposal that final allooations to individual projeots are <br />necessary and must be made in advance of their cm:struotion. Colorado <br />points out that no official or agenoy of the State is authorized to comply <br />with or carry out such a proposal. No such authority could be grante<l. by <br />the legislature to any official under the constitution of the State. The <br />right to divert and use water in Colorado is based upon prior appropri- <br />ation for benefioial purposes, Any change of principle or method would <br />require the amending of the State constitution. <br /> <br />,t" <br /> <br />I <br />I, <br />~ <br /> <br />Under Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 the Secretary of the <br />Interior is reauired to appropriate and divert water for reolamation <br />projects in conformity with the state laws regulating appropriation, use <br />and distribution of water supplies. And it must be noted that when hew <br />projects are constructed, the rights of existing appropriators must be <br />recognized and protected in order that suoh new projects may not adversely <br />affect established water uses. <br /> <br />Colorado must, therefore, reouest that, on the basis of the existing <br />laws of the State respeoting water rights, that all statements oontained <br />in the Report which directly or indirectly imply that final allocation to <br />individual projects is necessary and must be made in advance of further <br />