8044

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8044
• Author: Upper Colorado River Commission.
• Title: Thirtieth Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission.
• USFW Year: 1978.
• USFW - Doc Type: Salt Lake City, Utah.
• Copyright Material: NO

2. Second National Water Assessment

The Second Assessment of the Nation's Water and Related
Land Resources is one of the functions assigned to the Water
Resources Council by the Congress in the Water Resources Planning
Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-80). The Assessment is for the purpose
of identifying, describing, and placing in priority the Nation's severe
water and water-related problems from both the State/Regional and
National Viewpoint. The major components of the study are:

Step I - National Analysis
Step II - Specific-Problem Analysis
Step III - National Priorities Analysis

The Water Resources Council has the primary responsibility
for conducting both the National Analysis and the National Priorities
Analysis. The Specific-Problem Analysis was done at the State/Re-
gional level with the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the
Interior, acting as Regional Sponsor and the Upper Colorado River
Commission acting as Study Director.

Fifty copies of a draft of the Second National Assessment arrived
at the Commission office late in June 1978 for distribution and
review. The report consisted of nine volumes in addition to the
regional chapters and a 60-day review period was specified with a
closing date of August 28, 1978.

The draft was disappointing to the western States and particularly
to the Upper Colorado Region. Very critical comments were
furnished to the Water Resources Council by the Upper Colorado
Region and several other States and Regions. The report is biased
against irrigation and against ground water use, and contains many
technical errors. In spite of considerable effort and time expended
by State/Regional water resource people, the draft of the Assessment
almost totally ignores the State/Regional viewpoint and is essentially
a Federal document. The Regional chapters which were prepared
by regional sponsors or consultants were revised by the Water
Resources Council to reflect its language and computer-developed
data. The main report contains much superfluous information and
lacks the credibility to be of use to State/Regional water resource
people.

25