Laserfiche WebLink
<br />L . -.",n, <br />VtJdiJ":i <br /> <br />~5- <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />make determinations consistent with the Colorado River Compact, the Report <br />is neither comprehensive nor consistent with the Colorado River Ccmpact, <br />since it relates to and covers a territory which differs from the Colorado <br />River Basin as defined in the Compact. The Colorado River Compact, nego- <br />tiated at Santa Fe, New Mexico, November 22, 1922. divides the Colorado <br />River Bll.sin at Lee Ferry into an Upper Basin and a Lower Basin, and in <br />Article II therecf defines the Colorado River Basin to inolude all the <br />drainage area tributary to the Colorado River System in the United States, <br />and also all parts of the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, <br />New Mexioo, Utah and Wyoming which (though outside of said natural basin) <br />"are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted from <br />the Colorado River System." The territory covered by the Report conforms <br />to the Compaot definition in the Lower Basin, but departs therefrom in the <br />Upper Basin. It includes areas outside the natural basin in California, <br />but exoludes similar areas in Colorado, and in other states of the Upper <br />Basin, whioh are parts of the Colorado River Basin as defined in the Colo- <br />rado River Compact. This diffe,.ent treatment of the Upper and LQVer basins, <br />and of the states of California and Colorado, is a matter to which the <br />St~te of ColorRdo heretofore has objected, for the reason that such dif- <br />ferent treatment is not oonducive to amicable relations and understandings <br />between the two be.sins and the 'cwo states. The State of Colorado urges <br />and reoommends that the Report be modified so as to treat both basins and <br />all states alike, and to make it oonsistent in all respeots with the Colo~ <br />rado River Compact. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />f <br /> <br />~.. <br />~) , <br /> <br />I <br />\;,.' <br />( <br />I <br />, <br />. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />3. Inconsistent treatment of out-basin projects in Utah and <br />Colorado. With respect to enterprises and projeots which divert water <br />from the Colorado River System above Lee Ferry for use outside the natural <br />basin, the states of Utah and Colorado are not treated alike in the Report. <br />Such diversion enterprises and projects in Utah are listed by name and <br />individually, eaoh with specified depletion estimations. Similar diversion <br />enterprises and projeots in Colorado are not listed by name or individually, <br />and their estimated depletions are reported merely as a~gregate diversions <br />by tributary stream basins. Colorado urges again that the Report be modi- <br />fied 80 as to treat all affected states alike in the above mentioned and <br />all other respeots. <br /> <br />L <br /> <br />4. AB a comprehensive plan for develo~~:e_'2!:..~!::.~ Report is inoomplete <br />and misleading. The Report oontains a list of so-cal:ed potential projects. <br />Actually, this list constitutes an inventory of development possibilities. <br />whioh in most instances await detailed investigations and individual pro- <br />ject reports, It presents estimates of construction costs, benefits to <br />the Nation, probable collectible revenues from combined water and power <br />users, and water supply depletions, for what is described as a stage of <br />ultimate development. These estimates are based on the assumption, among <br />others, that all the so-called potential projeots listed in the Report <br />will be oonstructed and operated to the limits of their assumed ultimate <br />oapacities. At the same time the Report conoludes that inadequate water <br />supplies will prohibit the oonstruction of some of the so-oalled potential <br />