My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12333
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSP12333
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:14:39 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:31:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8410.300.60
Description
Basin Multistate Organizations - Missouri Basin States Association - Reports
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
1/27/1983
Author
MBSA
Title
An Issue Analysis of Out-Of-Basin Water Transfer
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
278
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I' ", :;J" <br />JUu..J I I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />in financing yet another interbasin transfer, the State Water Project. This <br /> <br />Project now under construction, is designed to transport water from the <br /> <br />Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta several hundred miles to southern California. <br /> <br />"A special committee of water lawyers was appointed in 1957 to study the <br /> <br />area of origin protection statutes and report its views to the State Attorney <br /> <br />General. This committee concluded that the present statutes were deficient <br /> <br />in failing to provide quantitative limits on the water reserved for the <br /> <br />county, area, or watershed of origin. Southern California insisted upon such <br /> <br />limits, arguing that costly projects for transporting water to the South were <br /> <br /> <br />not feasible unless the amount of surplus water permanently available for <br /> <br />export was determined in advance. Residents of the North, on the other <br /> <br />hand, objected that estimates of future needs in the North might be too <br /> <br />low. <br /> <br />"The water lawyers pointed out that this so-called conflict was <br /> <br />irreconcilable only if the quantity reserved was considered final, permanent, <br /> <br />and unchangeable. They believed that recapture offered no real solution, <br /> <br />and that it would be futile to permit construction of costly projects, such <br /> <br /> <br />as the Feather River Project (State Water Project), with the possibility that <br /> <br />the project might be made worthless by later recapture of the water by the <br /> <br />area of origin, as provided by the 1931 County of Origin Statute. At the <br /> <br />same time the Committee was worried that guaranteeing a given quantity <br /> <br />of water to the politically powerful southern part of the state would not <br /> <br />necessarily guarantee southern support for new projects in the North if the <br /> <br />wa ter reserved for the North later proved inadequate. The lawyers <br /> <br />concluded that the answer lay not in recapture, but in long-range plans for <br /> <br />-19- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.