WSP09274 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

supply avaUable in th<l'l Colorado River System is nearer to 19,200,000 acre feet a year than to 17,220.000 acre feet a year, the Bureau figure. The 19 million figure is based on Bureau estimates of virgin flow. It is simply a recapitulation of figures morl!l nearly in line with the available supply at actual or potential places of use, and taking account of the supply th~,t could be made available with the development oC storage. MR.MATTHEW~ Of coull."Se. the flow at the Interll\a,tional Boundary, I might point out, wouldn't represent the flow avaUable for consumptive use at any place except at the International Bou.nda7Y and points below. As far as water supply is concerned, there's a great deal more that has to be done. Average figures, on a long time average don't necessarily mean anything. Before final plans of development can be made, engineers will recognize that detailed studies will have to be made of operations on the proposed plans of development, on a multitude of reservoirs, and studies carried out to see just how much water can be made available under actual operating conditions. LO!llg time averages are merely an indication of what is available. 1 think there is also some qUE!!Jtion as to whether "virgin flow". so-called, or flow under natural conditio!".s, is the proper term to use in considering the water supply that is available for consumptive use. The California comments poi.~t out that the information on water supply and utilizatioill is insufUdellt for the determbllation of the practicability of individual projects, and thai detailed studies wUI have to be m3de for each project illl connection with the formulation of the final plan of development. Reports should cOllltaiall estimates of water supply durhng critical per;ods of subnormal .flow and should cover thorough investigation of po~sibilitie!l of developing and utilizing underground water in coordination with surface supplies. Determination of the share of water for each State must precede aelection of projects for comprehensive plan. Such determination should be made separately among the Upper Basin States .and among the Lower Basin States. As the status of economic feasibility in the report, California's comments point out that the procedure in the rlpOrt, pUl'porting to show economic feasibility of individual projects by the' pooling of estimates of costs and benefits for the entire group, is unsound. Projects should be analyzed and reported upon individually as to engineering and economic feasibility. Calculation of irrigation benefits based on gross farm income is fallacious. The. showing of power benefits is inconclusive and qwstionable. Cost estimates appear to be rough preliminary figures, subject to increase upon detailed investigation. Absence of cost allocations precludes proper analysis of economic feasibility and reimbursability. The recommendatiollls illl the r:aMfornia comments are summarized on Page 4. I think that it will be ,just as wen to refer to the original recommend. ~tiOlH':. o't\ t.h::tt~ 'R~ad U,;e f!'j~T4,,~r, 'r~,I!~"d<l!'lg of the C!?!HfCIfmti:3 comJrr\e111ts'" ThevaTe -SIc ~[