WSP03626 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

111 unreasonably exercised her sovereignty and the Court refused the injunction because Colorado had not exceeded her authority as a State. . In other words, were natural conditions different in the ,. Upper States of the Colorado, we might be called upon to determine what part of the water supply rising in HYOlning, Utah and Colo- rado they should use and vrhat part should go dO,1ll the river. For- tunately, notwithstanding the observation made by the Commissioner for New Mexico, we are saved that unfortunate position. I have in my hand a map of the state of Colorado prepared by Engineer Meeker of Colorado after a considerable investigation extending largely over two seasons. The small green areas represent the irrigated lands, the yellow the possibilities, the blue the possible reser- voir sites, the dark, of course, the rivers, and the heavy dark . line, the Continental Divide. Certain blotches appearing along this line indicate the so-called diversions out of the watershed .. or ,rholly consUmptive uses as regards the Haters of this river. The deeper color in the bro,m represents existing inter-watershed 'diversions. Upon this map will be found the following legend: Annual stream-floH produced Annual consumption 850,000 acres Annual unused floH to Colo. River Future maximum annual requirements of Colorado Lands, Ultimate annual surplus available to 10l-1er Colorado River, 12,100,000 1,100,000 11,000,000 acre-feet 11 " If 11 4,000,000 8,000,000 II If " tf . In other words, of all water rising in that State, we cannot .. take "or use an equitable part. \^Ie cannot use the amount of water to which \ole ,rould be reasonable entitled Here ,the physical cendi- tions different ,ri thin our territory. The same is true, in a large measure of v~oming, Utah and New Mexico. In other words, the four