My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence 1991-1992 Including Draft MOU's
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Correspondence 1991-1992 Including Draft MOU's
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2013 3:33:41 PM
Creation date
8/2/2012 3:35:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Correspondence 1991-1992 Including Draft MOU's
State
CO
Title
Correspondence 1991-1992 Including Draft MOU's
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Correspondence
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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
September 5, 1991 <br />Mr. Gerald R. Zimmerman <br />Executive Director <br />Colorado River Board of California <br />770 Fairmont Avenue, Suite 1000 <br />Glendale, CA 91203 -1035 <br />Dear Mr. Zimmerman; <br />The member states of the Upper Colorado River Commission have discussed <br />your proposal to seek introduction of legislation authorizing the Bureau of <br />Reclamation to implement the Colorado diver Enhanced Snowpack Test (CREST). <br />The Upper Division States believe that cloud seeding may be the only <br />mechanism increasing the available water supply in the Colorado River <br />Basin that iconomically feasible, or politically acceptable at this time. <br />We do, how have some concern about reactivating the CREST Program as <br />originally proposed. We believe that an operational cloud seeding project <br />that is based on state of the art technology as well as being redesigned to <br />utilize target areas spread more uniformly through the Seven Basin States <br />could be supported by the Upper Division States. <br />We are also concerned that the present cost - sharing proposal may be <br />Insufficient to gain secretarial and /or OMB support through the legislative <br />process. Serious discussions of this shortfall are necessary prior to the <br />introduction of any proposed legislation. For instance, Metropolitan Water <br />District might be willing to pledge an additional 25 -30% cost sharing in lieu <br />of financing an escrow account compensation package as proposed in your August <br />18 memorandum. <br />We 'would be willing to meet with the California River Board of Califor- <br />nia, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Bureau of <br />-Reclamation to discuss present cost estimates and redesign opportunities. <br />Sincerely, <br />Wayne E. Cook <br />Executive Director <br />WEC:pj <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.