WSP04363 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

criticism we proposed, in lieu of river commissions a central board of review, composed of;Federal permanent members, and, whenever a certain basin was to be considered, representatives of the affected States. In a decisive motion the States would have one vote and the Federal Government one vote. We en- visioned this Board as being the coordinator, directing the government agencies or States to do whatever they were competent to do in aQy particular basin develepment. Reports would come to this central board, be coordinated there and only through this board would anything be presented to Congress. While all details haven't been considered, we believe the idea sound. We even envisioned that the board, to avoid becoming a bureaucracy would set up inter-agency committees, compact commissions, or other types of organiza- tions, in the basins, to relieve the central board of details and to be the field coordinators. This plan would carry through the construction stage. We recommended that when any project reached completion or a stage where it could be operated by local people, it be turned over at once through the States to a'local organization for complete operation. Thus the Federal government would be in the position of a banker, but not of a general manager. The President's Water Policy Commission says it is the duty of the federal government not only to construct every hydro power plant possible in the United States but also to transmit the power to aQy and every load center. We do not agree with that. We recommend that power plants be constructed by the federa~ government only where they would be incidental to multiple purpose projects, ~ever as power plants alone; that the power be sold at,the bus bar without tra,nsmission except to the next government power plant; and that the price of power be set only on a competitive basis. These ideas are far reaching, but they are indicative of the thinking of a lot of people who are not within the bureaucracy. We think they are the only answer to an increasing government encroachment upon prerogatives of the States. We are speaking now as a Committee, since the N.R.A. has not yet fully approved our report. However, somebody has to ,crystallize these ideas, and when this Policy Commission report comes before Congress for action you should be well informed on it. *********** SILT'PROBLEMS IN LAKE MEAD AND DOWNSTREAM ON THE COLORADO RIVER C. P. Vetter, Chief, Office of River Control, Bureau of Reclamation, Region III When Hoover Dam was designed, it was estimated that the average silt inflow into the lake might be some 224,000,000 tons a year, and that the average volume loss due to silt accumulation would be approximately 137,000 acre-feet a year. But how and where this silt would be deposited were not only questions to which there were no answers--they were questions which had never been con- sidered. The designers, therefore, did what dam designers had done before, and what was considered valid procedure. They allowed a silt storage volume at the bottom of the reservoir below the elevation of the sills of the lowest outlet gates. At Hoover Dam this elevation is 895 feet and the volume below it 3,207,000 acre-feet. In February 1935 the outlet gates were closed and -35-