WSP01712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002786 ,. in-stream flow requirements. It is very misleading to begin with to have in-stream flow requirements only at the inflow and outflow points of the region, On the Lower Colorado of course, it's at the International Boundary. I think the requirements were something in excess of 7,000,000 acre-feet. That would seem somewhat excess to me and worth commenting on. The population projections were, this is one we have fought for, I guess, for a period of ten, eleven years, ever since we first started dealing with the Water Resources Council. Again, there is really not much we can do about that, it's the assump- tions they used in preparing the projections, which always gives a little projection for fast growing regions, when you project them into the future, The regional outflow, this is a number that they project as the flow from the region, and in our case of course, it's the Colorado River, Again, this was an effort to make a standardized national approach, which gives us a negative outflow of something like 1,4 million acre-feet by 1985. This really reflects the ground water overdraft situation, but in the way they did their hydrology it shows up as a negative flow from the Gila and a negative flow at the International Boundary. Seems a rather strange way to present it. The other problem that we had is, really seems so insignificant and ridiculous I think for somebody to do, but though the plan of study stated very clearly what the regional boundaries were and how the data would be collected, at the final point when we went into the National Report they changed those boundaries. So that none of the maps fit the data in the report. Again I wrote several letters, had a number of telephone conversations, and finally concluded that it was their report and really it was a decision they had made and there was nothing we could do about it. But basically, it includes part of California in the Lower Colorado. Also it excludes the mineral development in the Northeast part of the region. Colonel Vandenberg. Is it fair to say other then that it is perfect? Do you see a requirement or anything to be gained by this Committee taking any further action on the report? Mr. Johanson. The Executive Subcommittee did discuss that and maybe Mr. Morrill will summarize it. Upper Colorado Region .. Mr, Robert F, Wilson, Chief Engineer, Upper Colorado River Commission, reported. I, too, gave a rather negative report about the Assessment yesterday, rather lengthy, so I'll be very short today. We suggested that substantial parts of Part ~ and Part 4 would need to be eliminated from the report to make it ~~rthwhile. Bob Miller said Part 5 was not up to much. . Really, there's ',nqt,hing to Part 2 except that the problems t~at were developed during th~ arsessment are discussed and they just g1~e an example of each, so I a~,not sure what value that is. Today I'm g01ng to suggest that they throw the Summary away. I sort of get the, B-3