My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08352
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08352
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:47:51 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:55:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8543
Description
Closed Basin Division
State
CO
Basin
Rio Grande
Water Division
3
Date
8/5/1967
Title
Agenda Item #4 - Board Meeting September 7-8 1967 - Proposed Legislation - Closed Basin Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~i~ <br />("-,1 <br />\~'<() <br />.",~~ <br />~.:") <br />C~ <br /> <br />, <br />. <br /> <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />215 State Services Building <br />1525 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />August 25, 1967 <br /> <br />Xi E fl 0 R ~ N DUM <br /> <br />TO: Members, Colorado Water Conservation Board and Colorado <br />River Advisory Committee. <br /> <br />FROr-!: FeliJ: L. Sparks, Director. <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Agenda Item \~4, Board Meeting september 7-8, 1967, <br />proposed Legislation - Closed Basin Project. <br /> <br />In the pending case of Texas and New r~xico y. Colorado, <br />the United States Supreme Court by order dated February 13, 1967, <br />invited the solicitor General to submit the views of the united <br />States on the pending action. In his reply to the Court, the <br />Solicitor General, after reciting the facts, made this recommenda- <br />tion: <br /> <br />"Ne suggest, therefore, that the Court stay any <br />further action in this case for sbc months, until <br />October 16, 1967. That would afford a reasonable time <br />for the interested parties to demonstrate the feasi- <br />bility and imminence of an equitable administrative <br />solution. In the meantime the United States will <br />explore the matter of an administrative solution in <br />conjunction with the three states. If at the end of <br />this period it appears that the matter can be resolved <br />only by litigation, we shal: then inform the Court <br />\~hether the United States will intervene." <br /> <br />The Court adopted the recommendation of the Solicitor <br />General and stayed further proceedings in the case until October <br />16, 1967. It is imperative therefore that we be able to demon- <br />strate to the Court by such time that the State of Colorado is <br />actively pursuing a course leading to an administrative solution <br />to the controversy. There appears to be only two possible admin- <br />istrative solutions to the existing problem, as follows: <br /> <br />1. Reduce diversions from the Rio Grande in Colorado <br />through the authority nO\'l vested in the state <br />eng'ineer. <br /> <br />/ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.