Laserfiche WebLink
<br />u ;' /~)1- <br />L..., tJ...... . <br /> <br />After they rejected these offers and settled on the differential in Minute No. 242, <br />we had no choice. All of the Committee members were opposed to the long-term <br />use of upstream storage to dilute or replace Wellton-Mohawk return flows, and <br />took the firm position that it was a national obligation. We would have been <br />interested in importation but it was politically infeasible; [Senator Henry] Jackson <br />had forbidden even the study of it at that time. Releases from storage would have <br />hurt only the Upper Basin [which was not the cause of the problem]. <br /> <br />We had high hopes for desalting in those days, and were intrigued by the <br />experimental plant at Roswell, New Mexico. Maybe we got carried away by <br />gadgets. I'm glad to see, in retrospect, that the improvements in irrigation <br />efficiency have been so substantial. The Bureau pooh-poohed it, and I wasn't sure <br />it would work as well as it has. <br /> <br />An in all, my involvement with the Task Force was a very frustrating experience. <br />I felt we'd been used. Two constructive things did come out of it, though. First, <br />the seven Basin States, for the first time in history, cooperated on something. <br />Because we recognized our common goals and the benefits of cooperation, we <br />were able to get the Title II program authorized. Second, the idea [promoted by <br />EP A] of setting numerical limits on water quality at state boundaries was rejected. <br />It's a fact that you can't use water without degrading it. Upstream quality needed <br />to be addressed as well, if we were to be able to continue to develop our <br />allotments-Qr even operate the projects already built-and still give downstream <br />users usable water. That's why we supported Title II, even though we rejected <br />the proposed water quality standards. <br /> <br />:"..; <br /> <br />brownell,rpl <br /> <br />B-8 <br /> <br />September 1991 <br />