|
<br />~
<br />~
<br />C)
<br />-c
<br />o derway in the Pacific Northwest and Pacific
<br />o Southwest will not be changed.
<br />Progress reports on the investigation are to
<br />be submitted every two years. The first of
<br />such reports is to be submitted by June 30,
<br />1971, and the final report by June 30, 1977.
<br />One of the Act's very important provisos is
<br />that, until September 30, 1978, the Secretary
<br />shall not undertake studies of any plan to
<br />import water into the Colorado River Basin
<br />from any other natural river drainage basin
<br />lying outside the states of Arizona, Cali-
<br />fornia, Colorado, New Mexico, and those
<br />portions of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming
<br />which are in the natural drainage basin of the
<br />Colorado River.
<br />The Secretary of the Interior wrote to the
<br />governors of the eleven western states on
<br />April 4, 1969, advising them that the Bureau
<br />of Reclamation, acting on his behalf, would
<br />have primary responsibility for the investiga-
<br />tion. He invited state participation and asked
<br />that each state designate a representative to
<br />act as focal point for contact in matters relat-
<br />ed to the investigation. A similar letter was
<br />also sent to each of the heads of the interested
<br />federal departments.
<br />On May 13, 1969, Secretary for Resources
<br />Norman B. Livermore, Jr., responded on be-
<br />half of Governor Reagan for the State of Cali-
<br />fornia, naming Director of Water Resources
<br />William R. Gianelli as California's contact
<br />with the Secretary of the Interior for the
<br />investigation. Mr. Gianelli consulted with
<br />the Board, and on July 17, 1969, sent a letter
<br />to Assistant Secretary of the Interior James
<br />R. Smith with specific suggestions for the
<br />investigation. The main points in the letter
<br />are as follows:
<br />
<br />1. The states have a vital stake in the study and can
<br />contribute much. Through close association at
<br />the Western States Water Council meetings and
<br />at other meetings, the states have developed a
<br />mutuality of interest in hroad scale western
<br />water programs and are speeding development
<br />of state water plans.
<br />2. Maximum use should he made of existing data,
<br />studies, and organizational arrangements. Both
<br />the Department of Water Resources and the
<br />Colorado River Board have spent significant
<br />sums on broad scale regional water resources
<br />
<br />planning for many years and have considerable
<br />data and project planning information to con-
<br />tribute. In addition, California has many well-
<br />managed, influential, and far-sighted water
<br />districts, associations, power companies, conser-
<br />vation organizations, etc., which can make sig-
<br />nificant contributions to the investigation.
<br />3. California is already heavily involved in inter-
<br />state and federal-state water resources develop-
<br />ments through: (a) the Committee of Fourteen,
<br />(h) development of water quality standards
<br />under P.L 89-234, (c) the Lower Colorado River
<br />Management Program, (d) development of long-
<br />range operating criteria for Lakes Mead and
<br />Powell under P.L 90-537, (e) participation in fi-
<br />nancing pilot desalting plants, (f) weather
<br />modification, and (g) reclamation of waste water.
<br />4. California has made a continuing effort to de-
<br />velop and maintain a balanced program of plan-
<br />ning to meet its long-range water demands. Fun-
<br />damental to the program is the weighing of long
<br />lead times associated with major projects. To
<br />help focus on the timing problems and to make
<br />sure all alternatives are given appropriate atten-
<br />tion, California has prepared a long-range water
<br />resources planning network diagram which il-
<br />lustrates the overall program and some of the
<br />preliminary concepts, (A description of the long-
<br />range water resources planning network dia-
<br />gram is included in the following subsection of
<br />this report.)
<br />5. More federal-state meetings, similar to the meet-
<br />ing of June 30--July 1, 1969, between the Depart-
<br />ment of the Interior officials and the Western
<br />States Water Council representatives, should he
<br />held. The meeting was an excellent start in estab-
<br />lishing understanding of this important investi-
<br />gation, There is a need for Interior and the states
<br />to jointly consider and prepare a plan of study,
<br />establish the schedule and criteria, and correlate
<br />state contributions for the investigation.
<br />
<br />Although the study was authorized on Sep-
<br />tember 30, 1968, rules for budgeting under
<br />which the Secretary of the Interior operates
<br />classified it as a new start investigation. As
<br />such, initiation of the study required the ap-
<br />proval of the House and Senate Appropria-
<br />tions Committees of Congress along with an
<br />appropriation of funds. The earliest this
<br />could be accomplished was in the Public
<br />Works Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1969
<br />-70, which was signed by the President on
<br />December 11, 1969. The $200,000 basic funds
<br />provision for the fiscal year will be used to
<br />get the investigation organized and pro-
<br />
<br />17
<br />
|