Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001492 <br /> <br />-5- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />make determinations consistent with the Colorado River Compaot, the Report <br />is neither comprehensive nor oonsistent with the Colorado River Compaot, <br />sinoe it relates to and oovers a territory whioh differs from the Colorado <br />River Basin as defined in the Compaot. The Colorado River Compact, nego- <br />tiated at Santa Fe, New Mexico, November 22, 1922, divides the Colorado <br />River Basin at Lee Ferry into an Upper Basin and a Lower Basin, and in <br />Artiole II thereof 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 Mexico, utah and Wyoming whioh (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 oovered by the Report conforms <br />to the Compact definition in the Lower Basin, but departs therefrom in the <br />Upper Basin. It inoludes areas outside the natural basin in California, <br />but excludes similar areas in Colorado, and in other states of the Upper <br />Basin, which are parts of the Colorado River Basin as defined in the Colo- <br />rado River Compact. This different treatment of the Upper and Lower basins, <br />and of the states of California and Colorado, i8 a matter to whioh the <br />State of Colorado heretofore has objeoted, for the reason that suoh dif- <br />ferent treatment is not conduoive to amioable relations and understandings <br />between the two basins and the two 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 Compaot. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />3. Inconsistent treatment of out-basin projeots 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 projeots in Utah are listed by name and <br />individually, each 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 so as to treat all affeoted states alike in the above mentioned and <br />all other respects. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I. <br />} <br /> <br />4. As a comprehensive plan for development the Report is inoomplete <br />and misleading, The Report oontains a list of so-called potential prcjects, <br />Actually, this list constitutes an inventory of development possibilities <br />which in most instances await detailed investigations and individual pro- <br />jeot reports, It presents estimates of construotion costs, benefits to <br />the Nation, probable col1eotible revenues from oombined 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-oa11ed potential projects listed in the Report <br />will be oonstructed and operated to the limits of their assumed ultimate <br />capacities. At the same time the Report oono1udes that inadequate water <br />supplies will prohibit the oonstruotion of same of the so-oalled potential <br />