My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02094
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02094
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2017 2:02:31 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:10:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/23/2002
Description
CWCB Director's Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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 />~L'JlrMJ\;ljji) <br /> <br />r~A av, ~UL ~vu UU~V <br /> <br />_..........Co'1.oH'_...~"JNj , P- <br /> <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />million acre-feet was one of the conditions chat allowed ratification of the 1922 Compact and <br /> <br />construction of Hoover Dam to proceed. <br /> <br />l must say that with evelY passing day the Secretary and l grow more concerned about the <br /> <br />ability of entities in California to comply with the commitments in the California 4.4 Plan. Time <br /> <br />is of the essence, and it is vital that we rogethet complete each of the required elements of the 4.4- <br /> <br />Plan implementation - and complete them Q!Lschedule. And while the DcpaItll1ent Strongly <br /> <br />prefers to implement the solution crafled by all of you, in the end the Secretary, as Watel1lJaster of <br /> <br />..'. .."H. ....:.,... <br /> <br />the Lower Basin. will enforce the law of the River. <br /> <br />The interim surplus guidelines depend on attainin'g benchmarks -; Le:, specific recll,lctions " <br /> <br />of Colorado River water use in California, If California is not successful in implementing the 4.4 <br /> <br />Plan, the results could be grave for California. The Secretary is enjoined by the Supreme COllrt <br /> <br />. Decree from delivering water to California beyond its 4.4 miJJion acre-feet allocation unless <br /> <br />surplus water is available. lfwe experience several more dry years like 2001, and if the required <br /> <br />benchmarks are not met, California would have to reduce its usage in a much shorter time fr.ame <br /> <br />than currently planned under me interim surplus guidelines. While sucb arI:eventuaUty would <br /> <br />immediately impact urban water users in Southern California, they would no! be the only oneS <br /> <br />harmed. <br /> <br />l" <br /> <br />The risk of loss of surplus water for urban users in California would undoubtedly provoke <br /> <br />renewed demands to investigate beneficial use by agricultural users in .Califorllia, a longstanding <br /> <br />source of conflict within that state. This would certainly be an extremely divisive matter thllt <br /> <br />could undo much of tbe progress we have collectively been making on river m3n.agement in the <br /> <br />basin. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />Page'S of 8 <br /> <br />-- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.