My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP13019
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
WSP13019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:34:43 PM
Creation date
4/3/2008 12:27:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.600.20
Description
Colorado River Interim Storage Guidelines
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
6/19/1973
Author
UCRC
Title
Memorandum re: Construction of Section 602, Public law 90-537
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 />t-' <br /> <br />specified in phase (ii), particularly when both Lake Powell <br />and Lake Mead have substantial reserves of storage, any <br />problem caused by application of this criterion is not regarded <br />as serious. <br /> <br />Even this language could be read as indicating that the Committee under- <br /> <br />stood that the advantage/ous operating procedure would be foregone because <br /> <br />it would not be serious to follow the letter of the criterion. <br /> <br />The background for this statement in the report came from comments <br /> <br />of the Bureau of Reclamation dated February 9, 1966 I on Section 601 of <br /> <br />the proposed revision of H .R. 4671, draft of January 27, 1966. [See <br /> <br />Appendix 2 attached hereto.] A copy of this statement is found at page 1062 <br /> <br />of the Hearings before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the <br /> <br />Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives I <br /> <br />89th Congress I 2d Session, Part 2. In this comment there is no indication <br /> <br />that the Bureau of Reclamation considered that it had a type of discretion <br /> <br />in the meeting of the obligations of the criteria such as displayed in the <br /> <br />proposed action of the Bureau of Reclamation. <br /> <br />The next statement that could be interpreted that way is as follows: <br /> <br />That portion of Section 601 encompassed from the middle <br />of line IS of page 33 through line 3 of page 34 sets forth <br />specific criteria that will apply to a myriad of conditions in <br />the future. It is impossible to anticipate all of the combina- <br />tions of hydrOlogic sequences and economic and financial <br />factors that will occur in the future and to evaluate precisely <br />the effect of applYing rigid criteria under all such conditions. <br />Strict adherence to these specific criteria under some future <br />conditions might require, temporarily, a reservoir operation <br />which would not be the optimum operation, given those condi- <br />tions. We believe I hOwever I that such occasions would be <br />rare I of a few months duration at the most, and of minor con- <br />sequence. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.