WSPC06709

• File Number: 8210.720
• Description: Colorado River Basin Organizations-Entities - US Bureau of Reclamation
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 12/1/1946
• Author: CWCB
• Title: Comments-Views-and Recommendations of the State of Colorado - Concerning Report Number 34-8-2 - US BOR
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

OGll.8fJ
. t v

-2-

inoreased uses of water by existing projeots and additional uses
of water by projeots yet to be oonstruoted, oontrary to the pro-
visi ons of the Compaot and the above menti oned statutes;

(0) In estimating available water supplies and dep1etion8
it utilizes methods in the Lower Basin whioh differ from those
applied to the Upper Basin.

"

.

2. By failing to interpret and oonstrue the oontraots between the
Seoretary of the Interior and the states and water users of the Lower
Basin for the delivery of water from Lake Mead, the Report engenders fur-
.ther interstate oontroversy in that,

(a) It endeavors to impo8e upon the states the burden of
interpreting, oonstruing and applying these oontraots;

(b) It fails to disolose that any "surplus" water delivered
to California water users under these oontraots is not firm. water
sinoe surplus water as defined under the Compaot may not be ap-
portioned between the two basins by interstate oompaot before 19631

(0). It fails to diso1ose that the aggregate amounts of water
for delivery to the states and water users of the Lower Basin from
Lake Mead under the oontraots are inoonsisj;ent with the allocations
of water made to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compaot,
beoause in the oontraots with Arizona. and Nevada reoognition is made
of reservoir and ohanne1 oonveyance losses while in oontraots with
California water users suoh losses are ignored.

~

3. The Report is inoonsistent in that water supplies for existing
and potential projeots for the diversion of water from the natural basin
of the Colorado River for use in other basins in ColoradO are estimated
as sums er totals from one basin to another, whereas in other states of
the Upper Basin the estimates ino1ude desoriptions of individual projeots.

I
~
~ ;r
"
~,
i
!
1'r
~

4. The Report is misleading and inoonsistent in that it lists
individual projeots and presents estimates of oonstruotion oosts, benefits
to the Nation, and oolleotib1e revenues based upon the assumption that
all of suoh projeots will be oonstruoted and operated to the limits of
their ultimate capaoities. At the same time the Report oono1udes that
inadequate water supplies will prohibit the construction of some of these
projeots. Thus in the total figures for costs, returns and benefits, oon-
8ideration is given to projeots whioh cannot be oonstruoted,

5. The Report is unsound in that it fails to give oonsideration
to the desirability and feasibility of individual projeots and thus fails
to furnish any true and usable guide for a developnent program.

6. The Report is unsound in that it attempts to present a oompre-
hensive deve10pnent plan, but ignores the elementary faot that the desired