Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOlt8-1 <br /> <br />. <br />. j <br />I <br /> <br />-8- <br /> <br />to\\er Basin. - tho.t sorno of the waters of the Colorado River system are be- <br />ine; used "outside" above Loe Ferry. whereas all uses are "inside" below Lee <br />Ferry. Suoh an :lmplioation, whioh is not in acoordlllloe with bots, end <br />whioh results solely 1'I"0rn the distorted boundaries of the adoptod "Basin." <br />is unfair ,to the States of the Upper Division. Colorado suggests that the <br />Report be revised to show the Mlounbl of WI1ter involve" in present lllld po- <br />tential diversions frorn the Colorado River system uelow Lae Ferry for use <br />outside the naturo.l basinJ that suoh quantities be listed individually !Uld <br />be swnrnorized separately 1'I"01n uses within the natural basin. nnd be dosig- <br />nnted "export diversions." the some !IS those above Lee FerrYJ and thnt the <br />export diversions above and below Lae Ferry be oompared in amount in the <br />bnsin-wide summaries whioh Colorado suggests be added to the Report. <br /> <br />10. The Report presents estimates of so-oalled "vire;in flows." which <br />are not defined. and of so-onlled "depletions." whiah nre inCldequntely de- <br />fined. and says. at page 61 "The Compnat divided the water on the basis <br />of virgin flows." Colorado suge;ests that the Report be revised to elimi- <br />nate nll comparisons betweon so-onlled "virgin flows" and oompoct alloca- <br />tions of water. and all inferenoes that the two are directly comparnblel <br />and in defining depletions. aocount be taken of changeD in stream lossesl <br />and further. that the Bureau not assign depletions or savings in stream <br />losses to individual projects. This suggestion does not mean that so. <br />called "virgin flows" should not be evnluated or nppear in the Report. <br />for that term. if carefully and fully define d and consistently employed. <br />is useful in analyzing streamflow. wnter supply. and related data. At <br />the same time the Report should not stnte or infer that the "virgin flow" <br />quantities are the same as or ore directly comparable with too waters of <br />the Colorado. River system that have been and are hereafter to be appor- <br />tioned by the ColoradO River Compact. <br /> <br />19. While "virg!,n flows" are not defined in the Report. the quanti- <br />ties therein shown have been calculated as averages for psriods of years. <br />commonly for the period 1931-1940 for stream ~Ging stations abovo Lee <br />Ferry. and com-nonly for the period 1897-1943 for stations below Lee Ferry. <br />Ilureau of Reclamation representatives soy that. in the revised final <br />draft, average value s for both peri ods will appear for stations in both <br />"n3ins. Colorndo snys l;hnt t.ho Roport 1\3 Il ....11010 s,lould bo basod on lon(;- <br />-I;j,mo nvorag03. The purposo to bo served by virGin flo.... estimates. mani- <br />festly, is to foreCast the average conditions to be anticipated in the <br />future. Hith respect to no.tural phenomena such as precipitation, and <br />the runoff and streamflows resulting therefrom. all planning for the fu- <br />ture is necessarily bnsed on what has ocourred in the past. The best <br />evidence of what to expect in the future must bo bllsed on tho availnble <br />rocords of the past. Since noither the occurrence nor the sequenoe of <br />flood Ilnd drouth seasons and cyoles of years can be forecast with ac- <br />curncy, Colcrado sUGgests that virgin flow quantities appearing in the <br />Repcrt should 0.11 be bnsed on the s/llne period of years. in order that <br />comparisons may be mode one with onotherl and that said period of years <br />should be 1(J97-l943, if that be the longost 'for which streamflow reoords <br />are nvailable, or CM be calculated from relnted informntion. Thllt per- <br />iod is of sufficient length to insure that changes in avero.Ge values. as <br />additional reccrds beccme available. will probnbly be only of minor <br />