Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />[!f'! <br />;;~ <br /> <br />.::.; <br /> <br />"(' <br />.\/ <br /> <br />,~':;' <br />""I' <br />'"ti\- <br /> <br />'-.; <br />" <br /> <br />J: <br /> <br /> <br />UJui~' <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />inoreased uses of water by existing projeots and additional uses <br />of wCcter by projeots yet to be construoted, contrary to the pre- <br />visions of the Compaot and the above mentioned statutes; <br /> <br />(c) In estimating available water supplies and depletions <br />it utilizes methods in the Lower Basin which differ from those <br />applied to the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />2. By failing to interpret and oonstrue the oontraots between the <br />Seoretary of the L~terior and the states and water users of the Lower <br />Basin for the delivery of water from Lake Mead, the Report engenders fur- <br />ther interstate controversy in that, <br /> <br />(a) It endeavors to impose upon the states the burden of <br />interpreting, oonstruing and applying these oontraots; <br /> <br />(b) It fails to disolose that any "surplus" water delivered <br />to California water user~ under these contracts is not firm water <br />since surplus water as defined under the Compaot may not be ap- <br />portioned between the two basins by interstate compact before 19631 <br /> <br />(c) It fails to disclose that the ap~re~ate amounts of water <br />for delivery to the states and water users of the Lower Basin from <br />Lake Mead under the oontraots are inconsistent with the allooations <br />of water made to the Lower Bas in by the Colorado River Compact, <br />beoause in the oontracts with Arizona and Nevada reoognition is made <br />of reservoir and ohannel conveyanoe losses while in contraots with <br />California water usere such losses are ignored. <br /> <br />3. The Report is inoonsistent in that water supplies for existing <br />and potenti...:l projeots for the di version of water from the natural basin <br />of the Color~do River for use in other basins in Colorado are estimated <br />as sums or totals from one basin to another> whereas in other states of <br />the Upper Basin the estimates inolude desoriptions of individual projeots. <br /> <br />4. The Report is misleading and inc~sistent in that it li8ts <br />indi vidual projeots and presents estimates of construction oosts, benefits <br />to the Nation, and oolleotible revenues based upon the assumption that <br />&11 of suoh projeots will be oonstruoted and operated to the limits of <br />their ultimate capacities. At the same time the Report oonoludes that <br />inadequate water supplies will prohibit the construotion of some of these <br />projeots. Thus in the total figures for costs, returns and benefits, con- <br />sideration is given to projeots which cannot be oonstruoted. <br /> <br />5. The Report is unsound in that it fails to give oonsideration <br />to the desirability and feasibility of individual projects and thus fails <br />to furnish any true and usable guide for a development program. <br /> <br />,. The Report is unsound in that it attempts to present a compre- <br />hensive development plan, but ignores the elementary fact that the desired <br />