WSP04111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

...'--,,-.... . STAll! Of CAUFORNIA-THE ltfSOUllaS AGE"'-"\' . GEOIlGE DfUICMEJIAN, ao-- COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA 101 SOU1II BROADWAY, .OOM 1103 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 62C>-4-4IO . July 18, 1988 Clifford I. Barrett Regional Director Upper Colorado Regional Office Bureau of Reclamation P.O. Box 11568 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 Dear Mr. Barrett: Thank you for provi di ng the Board with a copy of the Gl en Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES), Executive Review Committee (ERC) Final Report, May 1988, which was transmitted to us by your letter of June 29, 1988, Upon reviewing the report, I was deeply concerned to learn that the joi nt corrvnents made by the lower Bas ins ta tes on the GCES report were not i nc 1 uded in the ERC report. These corrvnents were transmitted to you by a letter dated January 8, 1988 (copy attached) over my signature and those of Alan P. Kleinman, Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources, and Jack L. Stonehocker, Director, Colorado River Commission of Nevada. What makes this particularly troublesome is that I was specifically told that the comments would be included in the report at the April 20, 1988 briefing in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the preliminary recommendations of the ERC report. In addition, by including my letter of October 30, 1987, requesting review copies of the report, without also including the lower Basin states 1 letter of comments, erroneously implies that California or the other lower Basin states had no comments to offer on the GCES report. As you may recall, the lower Basin states were not officially provided wi th a copy of the GCES report until after the Bureau of Recl amation' s December 9, 1987 briefing on the studies held for the lower Basin states and others in Las Vegas, Nevada. At that briefing, the lower Basin states requested that they be furnished with an official copy of the GCES report for comment. The briefing is acknowledged on page 4 of the ERC report, followed by a statement that implies that our comments'are included in Appendix E. The GCES report, sent by book mail rate, did not arrive in our offices until January II, 1988. Nevertheless, the lower Basin states, by the aforementioned letter of January 8, 1988, acted promptly in submitting their comments to you without waiting for the official receipt of the report. Long del ays were also experi enced in recei vi ng requested copi es of the Nati ona 1 Academy of Sciences' (NAS) report on the studies from the Bureau, even though any i ndi vi dua 1 coul d readily recei ve a copy di rectly from the NAS upon request.