My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09274
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09274
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:52:26 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:33:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.110.60
Description
Colorado River Water Users Association
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
5/1/1947
Author
CRWUA
Title
Proceedings of the 1947 Conference
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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 />(a) It endeavors to i.mpose upon the states the burden <br />of h,terpreting. ccmst,:ui"'g and applying these contra"t,,; <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />{b) It taUs to disclose that any "surplus" water <br />delivered to California water users under these contracts is <br />not firm water since surplus water as defined under the <br />Compact may not be apportioned between the two basins by , <br />interstate compact before 1963; <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />(c) It fails to disclose lhat the aggregate amounts of <br />water for de livery to the states and water users of the Lower <br />Basin from Lake Mead under the contracts are inconsistent <br />with the allocations of water made to the Lower Basin by the <br />Colorado River Compact, because in the contracts with <br />Arizona and Nevada recognition is made of reservoir and <br />channel conveyance losses while in contracts with California <br />water users such losses are ignored," <br /> <br />MR. MATTHEW; I might interpose right there that the <br />Bureau's report states very definitely that no attempt is made in the report <br />to interpret the compact or the Boulder Canyon Project Act, or any of <br />the related documents or contracts, and so on. Colorado, apparently, <br />is commenting with respect to interpretation of those documents, regardless <br />of the fact that the report does not enter into that matter. Arizona, as you <br />win see when we come to its comments, presents its interpretation, of the <br />compact although the report does not purport to go into that. Some of the <br />other States refrain from commenting in regard to the interpretations of <br />the compact because of the fact that the report was not supposed to cover <br />thosei.nterpretations . <br /> <br />"3. The Report is inconsistent in that water supplies for <br />existing and potential projects for the diversion of water from the natural <br />basin of the ~olorado River for use in other basins in Colorado are <br />estimated as sums or totals from one kasin to another, whereas in other <br />states of the Upper Basin the estimates include descriptions of individual <br />projects. <br /> <br />40 The Report is misleading and inconsistent in that it <br />lists individual projects and presents estimates of construction costs, <br />benefits to the Nation, and collectible revenues based upon the assumption <br />,that all of such projects will be constructed and operated to the limits of <br />their ultimate capacities. At the same time the Report concludes that <br />inadequate water supplies will prohibit the construction of some of those <br />projects. Thus in the total figures for costs, returnsand benefits, consider- <br />ation is given to projects which cannot be constructed. <br /> <br />50 The Report is unsound in that it fails to give consider- <br />ation to the desirability and feasibility of individual projects and thus <br />fails to furnish any true and usable guide for a development program. <br /> <br />-Z4- <br /> <br />, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.