Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />OOO~27 <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />it is our understanding now that the States of New Mexico and Texas <br /> <br />fully support the authorizing legislation. <br /> <br />The projected operation of the project which we propose <br /> <br />is based upon the assumption that the project will furnish an average <br /> <br />of 60,000 acre-feet of water annually for the discharge of the <br /> <br />Mexican Treaty requirement. It is also based on the assumption that <br /> <br />Colorado will not be permitted to accrue further debits and that in <br /> <br />some years existing water uses in Colorado will have to be curtailed <br /> <br />in order to meet the compact delivery requirements. <br /> <br />For our study we used the historic sequence of events from <br /> <br />1943 through 1966. This is a more unfavorable period to the State <br /> <br />of Colorado than the 1936-1966 period used by the Bureau of Reclama- <br /> <br />tion. As can be seen from that study, a debit-free status could be <br /> <br />achieved at the end of the eleventh year with a repetition of the <br /> <br />historic sequence portrayed therein. The study is attached to this <br /> <br />statement. <br /> <br />We have reviewed the report of the Department of the <br /> <br />Interior on the pending legislation as submitted to the chairman of <br /> <br />the full committee under date of May 19, 1972. This report recom- <br /> <br />mends certain amendments to the legislation. We have no objection <br /> <br />to most of the recommended amendments. We take considerable excep- <br /> <br />tion, however, to the language contained in the first page of the <br /> <br />report which attempts to convert an obligation assumed by inter- <br /> <br />national treaty into an obligation assumed by the State of Colorado <br /> <br />-10- <br />