Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />4, Progress Report ort the 1975 National Water Assessment <br /> <br />California Region <br /> <br />Mr Robert W. Miller representing the State of California, said <br />that th~ agenda item as listed "Progress Reports on National Assessment" <br />was perhaps a misnomer since the Second Assessment had recently been <br />completed. He then noted that since.he had made detailed comments on <br />the draft report of the Second National Assessment at the Executive <br />Subcommittee meeting the previous day, he would comment only generally <br />this morning, He said that California had never been an a~id sup~orter <br />of the National Assessment, that it seemed to be an expensl.ve, pOJ.ntless <br />exercise and that although the Department had agreed to be the lead <br />agency f~r it, they were glad it was over. They would be submitting <br />their comments on the draft assessment hopefully by the 28 August <br />deadline, He concluded by saying that it was their hope that the <br />Council would not attempt a Third National Assessment. <br /> <br />/A, <br /> <br />Great BaSin Region <br /> <br />No report presented. <br /> <br />Lower Colorado Region <br /> <br />Mr. Dean P, Johanson, Study Director for this region reported. As <br />Bob Miller said, perhaps we're not exactly the most enthusiastic support- <br />ers either of the Second National Assessment and we hope it will be the <br />last for awhile. We will have spent two very difficult years, I think <br />somewhat frustrating years, preparing the National Assessment. In some <br />cases, maybe it's a little better than we expected it might have been, <br />but in most cases, it's very disappointing. They received quite a <br />number of the reports and had sent them out for comments and the number <br />of comments they had received back was most disappointing, as he was <br />sure it was. not that good. There is a lot of comment people might <br />offer. I think we should remember that the National Assessment, though <br />we may feel that perhaps it's not worth commenting on at times, but still <br />it is the written document. It will be quoted and it's bound to have <br />perhaps some effect on National Policy in the future. I sent out some <br />twenty-five copies for comment and received two written comments back <br />snd telephone calls and expect three more. A little disappointing, <br />the effort that has been put into it There were two levels of comments <br />they have on the National Assessment, one of them is the more editorial <br />type, mistakes in numbers, differences between tables, etc., and the other <br />is really the concepts and some of the assumptions used in the National <br />Assessment, The first, maybe, we can do something about. I'm sure they <br />would be receptive to correcting some,of the numbers and these sorts of <br />things, The concepts though, I think, we want to continue to go on the <br />record as objecting to some of the things they have done in the Assessment. <br />We have argued the points, some of them for one or two years, and some <br />for as long as ten or twelve years, it hasn't made any difference. Some <br />of these concepts I might mention, one is the method they treated the <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />B-2 <br />