4200 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

./ -. 2 U.S. Energy consumption in the year 2000 is expected to be 160 quadrillion btu's, twice the 1980 consumption. Coal production would double. We will need to increase total electric generating capability by 325 thousand megawatts, an amount equivalent to the nation's total generating capacity as of 1970. Even before the turn of the century, we have to make massive repairs and replacement of infrastructures, for example: -- Almost one-quarter million of the nation's highway bridges are already deficient or obsolete; -- An estimated one-half of our communities cannot expand because of water treatment systems that are at or near capacity; the aging municipal water systems in many eastern cities are in critical need of repair; hundreds or perhaps thousands of existing dams should be repaired or replaced; and here in the West, where water always has been of paramount concern, there is urgent need to get on with the work of reclamation. The problem that is being faced in the Upper Basin is a pattern that is being repeated nationwide with, as near as I can tell; only two differences. The first difference is that the problem is more critical here because water, is literally your life blood. Very few people anywhere else in the country a ,_ v a to live in a region that received 12 to 14 inches of annual precipitation. And yet that is the situation you live with in the country year after year. The second difference is that there is more misinformation and misunderstanding concerning the conflicts over Federal requirements in the Upper Colorado River Basin than in almost any other area I can think of. For instance, the status of the Colorado River Conservation Plan. The document that's been floating about since last summer is not the conservation plan. It's a draft technical paper. And I'm not splitting hairs and I'm not using any kind of bureaucratic jargon. It's just a technical draft, a summary of some of the facts and figures about the basin that was put together for review by some of the scientific types. It's got some unclear and (if you don't know how to read it) some pretty startling stuff -- like that 17,000 cfs for May and June. That was a case of incompleteness that caused some real, and justifiable, howls. It's not 17,000 cfs for two whole months. It's 17,000 cfs for a mere 5 days only during that 60-day period. I want to repeat and emphasize again that -- and if you don't remember anything else I say today, please remember this -- that plan, so called, is not the plan. It's just a preliminary technical draft. There will be a plan later on, and it will be a plan that includes your ideas, your thoughts, and your input. That's what the plan will be -- a do put that represents and balances the valid and legitimate rnnr??rn.g of ?naon?P in the 11CP _a A-4h,e resources of the reui'Qn. Bluntly put, we are reviewing all documents associated with these endangered fishes and a conservation plan for the UCRB.