Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Gerald R. Zimmerman <br />Page 2 <br />We also appreciate your views and conceptual ideas on the implementation of <br />interstate /interbasi.n water banking. The process you identified is no doubt <br />unique in the way it complies with historical "law of the river" constraints. <br />The water marketing schemes as proposed, however, may create more legal <br />confusion or challenges than the present climate of non -water marketing. <br />Allowing only water marketed through the governor's office to be administered <br />as non-system water or the requirement for Federal legislation to validate the <br />suggested method seem inappropriate to attempt to solve at this tame. Water <br />marketing on a year -to -year basis will only provide water for short periods of <br />stress such as drought and will not provide long-term supplies on which <br />economic development could be based. In addition water marketing as proposed <br />cannot provide supplies for users in many areas of the Upper Basin and, <br />therefore, only have a potential for major benefits in the Lower Basin. <br />Because immediate short -term needs in California (MWD) can be adequately <br />addressed by the proposal of supplying Colorado River system water until <br />California reduces its normal demands to 4.4 MAP, there is no immediate need <br />to continued discussions of acceptable water marketing schemes. <br />We look forward to reviewing your compilation of comments and our continued <br />discussion of the conceptual solutions on November $, 1991 in Phoenix, <br />Arizona. <br />