Laserfiche WebLink
<br />!P <br /> <br />000:0 ~~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The plan repll:1iS9llte1:W -.ulmination Of Jl\any years of in- <br />vesti.9<<t;ive and planning eff~t: and .in .its present fOrJll is fl~ongly <br />endorsed by federal, state and local agencies. The Colorado Water <br />Conserv~tiQn Boaro has ~ded financial assistance for the in- <br />vestigati"ons and has actively pressed for authorization. The states <br />of Texas and NeW' Mexico have both endorsed the project. Assurance <br />that the projeot will not damage adjaoent irrigation developments <br />has eliminated all local opposition. <br />Since the feasibility report on this project was com- <br />pleted the States of ~xas ~nd New Mexico jointly requested leave <br />of the supreme Court of the united States to file a complaint <br />against Colorado allegin~ v~olation Gf the water delivery terms of <br />the Rio Grande Compact. ~olo~<lo has filed a motion in opposition <br />suggesting among other thing~ an administrative rather than a legal <br />solution to the problem. Construction of the CloseeS Basin Project <br />would provide an equitable e.dminbtxat1ve solution. In April of <br />this year the solic1tor General o~ the United States, in a Memoran- <br />dum for the United states, requested the Court to delay any action <br />for six months and pointed out that early construction of this proj- <br />ect would provide an administrative solution to the problem and moot <br />the question. Thus c:onstJ:uction of the project not only would pro- <br />vide the water that would reduce and eventually wipe out Colorado's <br />debit to downstream $tatea ~ut would also prevent years of costly <br /> <br />Closed Basin Division <br /> <br />..3- <br />