Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />r <br /> <br />,001523 . <br />UPPER COLORADO <br />RIVER COMMISSION <br /> <br />. CD:if I CJ<.- ?r,M / e.0.::30'1 <br />--1. ~ _ ( -r pos-t-t <br />-1- ~,.! P< <br />. Se,,)((/.yo.. .b""~'!."", s-{....J.-e... <br /> <br />. I I f, <br />'1, ( <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />355 South Fourth East Street. Salt Lake City. Utah 84111 .801-531-1150. FAX 801-531-9705 <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br /> <br />TO: Upper Colorado River Commissioners <br /> <br />FROM: Commission Staff <br /> <br />DATE: December 31, 1992 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: RECENT SPEECH BY DAN ISRAEL BEFORE THE COLORADO RIVER WATER <br />USERS ASSOCIATION MEETING, DECEMBER 12, 1992, ON TRIBAL <br />LEASING OF COLORADO RIVER WATERS <br /> <br />We have finally obtained copies of Mr. Israel's presentation on tribal <br />leasing. Attached is a copy of the written material from which he extracted <br />his comments. Jane and I have carefully reviewed the facts contained in his <br />presentation and have the following concerns: <br /> <br />On page 5, Dan alleges that with Upper Basin depletions at 3.7 maf (4.2 maf <br />including evaporation) that the "projected 1922 Compact depletions for the <br />Upper Basin are off by 70%.". We cannot recreate this calculation, however, if <br />one assumes the Compact projected (contemplated, authorized) 7.5 maf and we <br />are at 4.2 maf then the projection is really off 7.5-4.2 = 3.3/42 = 79%. <br />However, we really lost 10% when we guaranteed a delivery of 7.5 maf/lO years <br />and another 10+% when we agreed to operate under the 1970 criteria. The <br />calculation then looks like 6.0-4.2 = 1.8/4.2 = 43% off. However, when you <br />consider the fact that approximately 0.8 maf of additional depletions will <br />occur "without new" Federal projects, the real valid calculation might look <br />like 6.0-5.0/5.0 = 1.0/5.0 = 20%. What this really means is that we might <br />expect to fall +20% short of "ultimate" Upper Basin depletions without <br />significant inc;eased Federal involvement. That number is significantly more <br />optimistic than Dan's and takes a great deal of wind out of his setting. <br />Mr. Israel's discussion of tribal leasing of Colorado River waters also has <br />several errors from a legal standpoint. The most serious is that Mr. Israel, <br />with perfect 20/20 hindsight, applies his own interpretation of current law <br />regarding equitable apportionment and water leasing to conditions in the <br />Colorado River Basin 70 years ago in order to support his argument that "the <br />Upper Basin States would be better off today were there no [Colorado River] <br />Compact" (p. 14). Furthermore according to Mr. Israel, "If no Compact had <br />