Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. HOWARD: I think from California's viewpoint, <br />there would be little point in arguing the matter 1beyond making the <br />statement that we are not i1'. aceord with Adzol'la'.9 statement uI <br />think that is sufficient for the moment. <br /> <br />MR. MATTHEW: Any furthe:r discussion or discussions <br />on Arizona? If not, we might proceed to the CALIFORNiA comments. <br />The summary rather briefs the comments, which are quite extensive. <br />I think you all have a copy of the full text of the comments. I might <br />suggest you go through these comments in th~l summary form. <br /> <br />The California comments point OlAt that the report does <br />not comply witb Section 15 of Boulder CS'll.yon Pl'Oj",ct Act nor Section <br />9 of Reclamation Project Act 1939. Projects are not analyzed <br />1I1dividually as to feasibility and reimbursability as rlflquired by law. <br />A comprehensive plan bas not b,!elll. formulated. Fadolrll whicb govern <br />enginlflering and financial feasibUUy of projO?lcts are lacking. The report <br />is only a catalog of pot.ential projects, which does I'\ot constitute a basis <br />for authorization of any new project. <br /> <br />Many of the potential project8 listed win have to be eliminated <br />in order that existing and authorized projects be fully satisfied as. to water <br />needs and rights 0 However, the report does not furnish sufHc:l.ent data <br />for selectiollll of projects by States or even fOlr detel.mination by states <br />of their respective rights to water of thlfl Colorado River System. <br /> <br />Large holdover storage is required to meet compact <br />requiremel\'lts and equate river flow. <br /> <br />The report lacks necessary detailed inform"Uon and analyses <br />for evaluation of electric power estimated to be p'roduced. <br /> <br />More information is required on present and probably future <br />quality of water and on the silt problem. ' <br /> <br />Insufficient consideration is given to proposed transmountain <br />or export projects in the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />Information in report. on water supply is inadequate because <br />it does' not take full account of natural losses preventable by progressive <br />development and because data are not given on the availability of water <br />at potential places of use. Estimates of use based 011 "depletion" of <br />virgin flow at the Boundary are not applicable and are not in conformity <br />with -ompact and related legislation. Water requirements should be <br />based on "consumptive use" wberever it may occur. <br /> <br />California presents estimates of water, supply and requirements <br />with due regard, so far as the available data permit, to probable reduction <br />of llaturallosses under full basin development and to net cOIl'ulumptive uses of <br />wat.er at pla.ces of use. The figures indicate that the total long time average <br /> <br />C'O ~>>~~ '" <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />'".- <br />