Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />o <br />l.:) <br />::.:") <br />"'"' <br />-.J <br />toe <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />a transbasin di version, not for <br />arithmetically "found." If that <br />be similarly credited with water <br />realize a net gain in flow. I <br />reported channel loss as reported. <br /> <br />water that <br />were true, <br />in reaches <br />recormnend <br /> <br />may be generated or <br />the Upper Basin should <br />of the tributaries that <br />that we object to the <br /> <br />The greatest improvement in the new draft Uses and Losses Report is <br />the inclusion of a more complete, and easily understood, Technical <br />Appendix for the Upper Basin. Unfortunately, data from the Lower <br />Basin were not detailed in an appendix. The Lower Colorado River <br />Region relied heavily on the reported accounting for Article V of <br />Arizona v. California. Unfortunately, these data are not inclusive <br />of all uses in the Lower Basin. I have suggested that this problem <br />be rectified ~n the 1986-1990 Uses and Losses Report. <br /> <br />The new draft Uses and Losses Report is much better than the <br />original draft. Although I see no major problem with it, the <br />Corrnnission member States are still reviewing it. I suggest that <br />this updated analysis be forwarded to the states and members of the <br />Engineering Corrnni ttee for their use. <br /> <br />Attachments <br /> <br />3 <br />