WSP06274 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001127 . . Association legislative committee, referring to this act, re- ported at the Long Beach convention: "Hearings were held before the Irrigation Sub-Committee in the house, at which, Glenn E. Saunders, attorney for the City of Denver, and William E. Welsh, our secretary- manager, presented testimony." Attorney Saunders at the October, 1953 Colorado Bar Asso- ciation water section stated that this act does not apply to the pending federal court to determine Colorado-Big Thompson water rights. K. ~ Defend Against Denver's Efforts to Outdate Us. Not to Get U. S. Money. Our rivals for West Slope water priorities, chiefly Den- ver, fathered and have inspired the activities of that associa- tion, in opposing our efforts and those of the United States to establish in court the priorities of our project water rights, We are not opposing Denver's efforts to get interest-free gov- ernment money to build its proposed Blue River project. We are defending in courts against Denver and Colorado Springs much- lawyered effort to obtain, for their more recent works, prior- ities which would make inferior our rights to Colorado River water. We cannot be indifferent to their effort if it results in their gain at the deprivation of the users of water of our project. We urge that those cities are asking too much in seek- ing to sUbordinate our water rights to their projects in the light of their lack of diligence to the time when our project was undertaken. If Denver would have the prior right to take 177,000 acre feet, and Colorado Springs the amount they claim, from the Blue, the Colorado River will have that much less water to supply claimants down stream who might be so deprived and hence have our diversions stopped at critical times, though those events might be twenty-five years hence. -19~