Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GEORGE E. LEONARD <br />CHAIRMAN <br /> <br />"Onn80 <br /> <br />MEM8ER. <br />PETER BIANCO <br />LINTON CLARIDGE <br />DAVID R. GIPE <br />DOUGLAS oJ. WALL <br />WILLIAM H. WHEELER <br /> <br />,.~~~.,....'<~~." <br />II .:~ <br />I" .., <br />It. . II <br />, . <br />'~.J!.iI!',I <br /> <br />JOHN S. HOOPES <br />VICE_CHAIRMAN <br /> <br />WESLEY E. STEINER <br />EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR <br />AND <br />STATE WATER ENGINEER <br /> <br />l\riznul1 ~aUr Cl!nmmillllinu <br /> <br />EXOFFICIO MEMBER. <br />ANDREW L. BETTWY <br />MARSHALL HUMPHREY <br /> <br />_ " 3" WEST MONIIOE .TIllEET - 7TH nOOR <br />l:L~~~~~ }~~yiznUlt ~5np3 <br />TELEPHONE (eQa) aIl8.7..1 <br />222 NORTH CENmAL IW:::'JUE <br />PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85D04 <br /> <br />July 18, 1972 <br /> <br />Mr. Robert H. Griffin, Chairman <br />Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee <br />Federal Power Commission <br />555 Battery Street Room ~15 <br />San Francisco, California 94111 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Griffin: <br /> <br />The Arizona Water Commission staff has the following <br />comments on the November 1971 edition of the Pacific Southwest <br />Analytical Summary Report on Water and Land Resources of the four <br />Pacific Southwest regions. <br /> <br />The information in this report gleaned from the four <br />regional studies is very well presented. The chairmen, authors <br />and editors are to be commended for their effort in preparing a <br />report that is attractively arranged, well organized and easy to <br />read. <br /> <br />The water resources analysis section is inherently <br />deficient, however, as conclusions reached in the respective <br />regional studies on water availability and future levels of <br />development were not formulated using common criteria and hence <br />cannot be combined in a meaningful analysis for the entire Pacific <br />Southwest area. This is particularly true as regards ground water <br />yields and quantity in storage and levels of development beyond <br />compact entitlements. <br /> <br />We are not in agreement with either the approach or the <br />conclusions of the Analysis section in Part VII of this report. The <br />elasticity study is quite deceptive in that it picks up elasticity <br />coefficients from the Dean-King study and uses them without an <br />examination of the rather large assumptions required for their use. <br />The same is true for the discussion on the reallocation of produc- <br />tion. These approaches lead to the erroneous conclusion that large <br />blocks of water could be released, through commodity imports, to <br />higher economic uses of water. Such a conclusion is unrealistic and <br />grossly misleading in most instances as it completely disregards the <br />"property right character" of the water resource in the West under <br />the various state statutes, compacts and court decrees and the cost <br />of disrupting these rights. Thus, proposals such as these which <br /> <br />EXHIBIT I <br /> <br />