WSP02118 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"' that a compact may be agreed upon and signed by the Commissioners. This will allm1 what is deemed sufficie~ time to prep~re for the submission of tho com- pact to the legislatures of the signatory st~tes. Approval by Congress must follow ratification by the legislatures of the signatory states. Undor the most favorable progress, r~tification by the five St~tes and approval by the Congress cannot be reasonably expeoted before about the middle of 1949. Judging from e~ pGrience in these matters, final consummntion of this compact endeavor may come much later in the year of 1949. All of the compacting States are using every effort to follow out the program herein mentionod, but no assurance can be given at thi s time that such c. progrum will be actually accomplished. 2. Compact apportionment of Color~do River water to Colorado must includo a determination of the State' s oblig~tion to "ake deli'/ories of -"o.ter at Loo Ferry under tho terms of the Color~do River Compact; and the State's utilization of such apportionment must be' compatible with the ability of the State to make such Loe Ferry deliveries. 3. It is important th~t all necessary steps be taken durin& this rather critical period on the Colorado River to avoid, as fur as possible, intrastate controversies. Such controvorsico will not bo conducive to the negotiation, State ratification, ~nd Congressional approval of 0 compact, nor to the mainten- anco of a solidarity of action by the Upper Colerado River Basin Statos against tho claims of Californi~ to Colorado Rivor vmter. 4. Critical isoues rospecting the intorpretntion of the Colorndo River Com- pact have arisen in rocent months. Theso issues have been raised in concrete form in the Congress of the United States. They affect tho rights and interests of the Stato of Colorado in the future utiliz~tion of Colorado Rivor water. Tho alignment of Colorado River Basin States on these issues shows the Statos of Californin r,nd Hevada opposing the States of l.rizona, Colorado, Now Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. These States arc new preparing te pro sent their respcctive positions on pending bills Gnd rosolutiono in Congross at hearings which will soon be held. Besidos, the State of California, at tho present time, and for some months in tho past, hns tc.ken a position ~gainst proposed Federal legislation which would permit substantial water dovelop~ent in tho other statos of the Colorado River Basin. All of this indicatos tho necessity for state-wide policios and action in order to expedite and insure such project development as is neces- sary to utilizo eQch stnte's share of the wator of Colorndo River Basin. This in turn, means solidnrity ~ction on the part of tho five states of tho Upper Colorado River Basin. ;'ny individual project, particularly if it involves tho utilization of a considernble Qrnount of wator of the Color~do River Basin, must be plunned and considored for Quthorization in the light of thcse circunstancos. Failuro to do so will result in delays in accomplishing actual water utilization and con- troversios over proposed projcct authorization. 5. Tho topography of Colorado presents Qn intrastate problem which it is hopod will be solved ~ith rcs~cct to each individual project on the basis of a -2-