WSP06274 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001123 . . United States from Denver's writ of error. Furthermore is the fact that the whole Colorado River is an interstate stream now being brought into United States Supreme Court allocation. A federal court adjudication will be of more value than adjudica- tions would have been from the various state courts, which are of more limited jurisdiction both as to area, and as to what questions may be determined--such as the effect of Senate Doc- ument 80. These are some of the legal incidents which have, after mature consideration, caused the attorneys for the District to conclude that an adjudication of the many Colorado River water questions involved is of greater value in federal court than to have had such adjudications piece-meal, in state courts of the Western Slope. It does not embrace East Slope stream ad- judications. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District policy on the legal effect of Senate Document 80 has been to regard it in good faith as a treaty of contractual nature to be adhered to in manner of construction and to be performed in manner of operation. Denver, in stating its contentions in the Colorado Supreme Court and in the federal court case, asserts that Sen- ate Document 80 is nothing more than a mere report of the Bur- eau of Seclamation to Congress on the economic feasibility of our project and that it is not binding on Denver. For the District water users our interests are paired with those of the United States in having decrees for priorities of the project on the Blue and on the main Colorado, not junior to those of Denver and Colorado Springs and the Moffat Company, nor to the enlarged Shoshoni power plant claim. We differ with government interests in some matters of manner of operation under Senate Document 80, but not on cooperating for senior ~~