Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.-, <br /> <br />MR. SMITI-I' I haven't a great deal t.o say, lvh:. <br />Cha.irrl'1an, in the VN:lY of COrrnYl~~nt~ aud roost of that is general in. <br />character. In l'eadl.lrAg over these reports by the various States that have <br />been handed to us since we came he!:"€:, I have been rather astonished <br />at the intemperate comments that have been made by some of the. States <br />as to the Bureau's comprehensive report, and the epithets that have <br />been applied to the report, particularly Colol'ado's repetition of the <br />word "unsound" g and then we have, ''It's incomplete, and should be <br />modified," and that it's "mi..leading" and"lacks information," etc. .- <br />seems to me to be going a pretty good long ways in the way of criticism <br />of an honest and sincere, and to my mind, extremely valuable effort <br />on the pM.t of the Bureau to perform a given task that was allocated to it. <br />California, at least, has been more considerate in its comments and <br />criticisms, and apparently only questions the adequacy of the report in <br />some, respects. I think the Bureau, the officials themselves, should be <br />the fi!:"st to state that they do not consider the report adequate or complete. <br />It was a colossal task that was given them, and they have performed <br />a lU",~~ificent work in going as far as they had on that report. My <br />interpretation is that t.his report does not set up any firm projects~ that <br />it's merely a descriptive, technical inventory of all possible projects. <br />Perhaps I shouldnli say "all"; there may be other developments or <br />different phases as time goes on, depleting or absorbing some of those <br />that have ,been described and they are set up, as far as my reading of the <br />repo<t goes, h'respective of their merit. Some of those pr,"jects will <br />be self,. liquidating through l'eclamationand through the development of <br />power, and others will not, an,d they may be eliminated entirely before <br />the full development is accomplished. <br /> <br />. .' <br /> <br />So much for the Bureau's report. I feel that it's a splendid <br />piece of work, and a good deal more than something to shoot ata <br />something to work with. <br /> <br />Referring to the summary of California's comments, <br />it seems to me that they have given very careful thought and study to <br />many features of the report, particularly, as they affect California, <br />and I think we can say that we would go along with them on most of their <br />comments 0 There is only one thing that gives me some apprehension,... <br />perhaps needs a little more careful examination. Now, in Nevada, we have <br />several small projects that we think should be listed with fairly early <br />priorities. In Item No.4, of the Summary on the State of California comment, <br />it reads as follows: "That no new consumptive use projects in the'Lower <br />Basin be authorized until determination has been made of rights of each <br />State to water." Well, that may require some time. We know the status <br />of the contrOl/'ersy over allocation of water in the Downstream Basin, which <br />has raged between Arhlona and California for many years. That doesn't <br />seem to be near solution as yet. Nevada has sat in on those discussions as <br />to how the proposed Downstream Compact between the Three States, which <br />was authorized by Congress, might be worked outo Nevada's position was <br /> <br />>it ,.., <br /> <br /> <br />-39- <br />